Use of a Gardening and Nutrition Education Program to Improve the Produce Intake of School Age...

Use of a Gardening and Nutrition Education Program to Improve the Produce Intake of

School Age Children Living in Appalachian Ohio

A thesis presented to

the faculty of

the College of Health and Human Services of Ohio University

In partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

Master of Science

Ashley B. Zurmehly

August 2009

© 2009 Ashley B. Zurmehly. All Rights Reserved.

2

This thesis titled


School Age Children Living in Appalachian Ohio

by

ASHLEY B. ZURMEHLY

has been approved for

the School of Human and Consumer Sciences

and the College of Health and Human Services by

David H. Holben

Professor of Human and Consumer Sciences

Gary S. Neiman

Dean, College of Health and Human Services

3

ABSTRACT

ZURMEHLY, ASHLEY B., M.S., August 2009, Food and Nutrition


School Age Children Living in Appalachian Ohio (228 pp.)

Director of Thesis: David H. Holben

This study: (a) measured the effect of a nutrition and gardening education

program on Appalachian children’s fruit and vegetable intakes and preferences; and (b)

examined the relationship of food security status to gardening habits and perceptions,

produce intake, and personal characteristics of children and their adult female caregivers.

In this study, participants were: (a) 91 children who completed a pre-test, nutrition

education and gardening program (intervention), and a post-test over a six-week period;

and (b) 99 female caregivers who completed a 79-item survey prior to the six-week

intervention period about themselves, their household, and their 157 children. Results

indicated that the six-week nutrition education and gardening intervention did not

significantly impact produce intake variety or produce preference variety among the

children participating in the program. Overall, household food security was not related to

the variety of produce eaten or preferred reported by children; however, it was related to

vegetable intake, education, diet quality, food assistance program participation, and body

mass index of the female caregivers. On the other hand, household food security was

related to the children’s estimated produce intake and preferences reported by the female

caregivers prior to the intervention. It was also found that children’s gardening habits

reflected that of their female caregivers, but children’s self-reported produce intake

4 variety was not related to their gardening habits. However, household food security was

not related to gardening habits or produce readiness of female caregivers. Dietetic and

nutrition professionals can use these findings to develop other interventions including

gardening and nutrition education with both children and their families.

Approved: _____________________________________________________________

David H. Holben

Professor of Human and Consumer Sciences

5

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thank you to my advisor Dr. David Holben, and other faculty members, who

made this possible: Ms. Deborah Murray and Dr. Jennifer Chabot. Also thanks to all of

my family and friends for supporting me, especially Todd who helped me through the

entire process.

6

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 5

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 10

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 12

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 13

Overview and Background ........................................................................................... 13

Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................. 17

Purposes of the Study ................................................................................................... 17

Research Questions and Hypotheses ............................................................................ 18

Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 20

Potential Delimitations and Limitations ....................................................................... 21

Definition of Terms ...................................................................................................... 22

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................................................... 23

Food Security ................................................................................................................ 24

Definitions ................................................................................................................. 24

Measurement of Food Security ................................................................................. 25

Food Security in the United States ............................................................................ 31

Risk Factors for Food Insecurity .............................................................................. 36

Outcomes of Food Insecurity in Adults ..................................................................... 38

Food insecurity and chronic disease risk among adults. ....................................... 39

Food insecurity and overweight/obesity among adults. ........................................ 39

7

Food insecurity and overall health among adults. ................................................ 41

Food insecurity and diet among adults. ................................................................ 42

Outcomes of food insecurity in children ................................................................... 48

Food insecurity and overweight among children. ................................................. 48

Food insecurity and overall health status among children. ................................... 50

Food insecurity and diet and hunger among children. .......................................... 51

Federal and Non-Federal Food Assistance Programs ................................................... 53

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infant, and Children

(WIC) ......................................................................................................................... 54

FNS Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) ...................................... 55

School Meals Programs ............................................................................................ 57

The school lunch program. ................................................................................... 57

The special milk program. .................................................................................... 60

Summer Food Service Program ................................................................................ 60

Community Garden-Based Programs ....................................................................... 61

The America Community Gardening Association. ............................................... 61

Farm-to-School. .................................................................................................... 61

School gardening. ................................................................................................. 62

Community Food Initiatives. ................................................................................ 63

Appalachia .................................................................................................................... 63

Health ........................................................................................................................ 68

Obesity. ................................................................................................................. 69

8

Cancer and chronic disease. .................................................................................. 70

Mental health. ....................................................................................................... 72

Food Security ............................................................................................................ 72

Produce Intake in the United States .............................................................................. 73

Produce and Gardening Interventions ........................................................................... 75

Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 79

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 81

Subjects ......................................................................................................................... 82

Setting ........................................................................................................................... 82

Project Description ....................................................................................................... 83

The Nutrition Education and Gardening Program ........................................................ 85

Data Scoring and Statistical Analysis ........................................................................... 85

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS .................................................................................................. 89

Child Participant Data ................................................................................................... 89

Female Caregiver Participant Data ............................................................................... 93

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....... 113

Children Participants’ Produce Preference and Intake Variety .................................. 114

Food Security .............................................................................................................. 116

Household Food Security Status ............................................................................. 116

Food Security, Body Weight, Diet, and Health ....................................................... 120

Food Security, Gardening, and Diet ....................................................................... 123

Food security and female caregiver’s gardening and diet. ................................. 123

9

Food security and children’s diet. ....................................................................... 125

Female Caregiver Gardening and Produce Habits ...................................................... 128

Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................... 130

Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 130

Recommendations ................................................................................................... 133

References ....................................................................................................................... 136

APPENDIX A: FOOD SECURITY SURVEY MODULE SCORING FOOD SECURITY

SURVEY MODULE 18 AND 6 ITEM SCORING ....................................................... 165

APPENDIX B: KIDS ON CAMPUS SURVEY SCORING .......................................... 170

APPENDIX C: IRB APPROVAL .................................................................................. 175

APPENDIX D: KIDS ON CAMPUS SURVEY ............................................................ 176

APPENDIX E: KIDS ON CAMPUS LESSON PLANS BIG TOP GARDEN 2008 ..... 193

WEEK 1: GARDENING IS GREAT ........................................................................ 193

WEEK 2: GARDENING IS COLORFUL ................................................................ 198

WEEK 3: FRUIT + VEGETABLES = FIBER ......................................................... 204

WEEK 4: TEAMWORK ........................................................................................... 210

WEEK 5: DYNAMIC DUO ..................................................................................... 215

WEEK 6: SCRAPS TO SOIL ................................................................................... 221

APPENDIX F: CHILD FRUIT AND VEGETABLE SURVEYS ................................. 227

10

LIST OF TABLES

Page Table 1: Research Questions and Hypotheses ................................................................19 Table 2: 18-item Food Security Survey Module, 2008 ...................................................27 Table 3: Food Security Categories Defined by the USDA .............................................29 Table 4: Six-item Food Security Questionnaire, 2008 ....................................................31 Table 5: SNAP 2009 Income and Resource Cut-off Levels ...........................................56 Table 6: School Meal Income Qualifications .................................................................58 Table 7: Region Economic and Educational Level Comparison ....................................66 Table 8: Research Questions and Associated Statistical Test .........................................87 Table 9: Child Participants’ Produce Preferences and Intakes .......................................91 Table 10: Characteristics of Female Participants and Their Households .......................94 Table 11: Female Caregiver Body Mass Index and Perceived Diet Quality and Health

Status ...............................................................................................................................96

Table 12: Female Participant Readiness for Eating Produce ..........................................98

Table 13: Female Participant Gardening Habits and Readiness for Gardening Produce ...

.........................................................................................................................................99

Table 14: Relationship of Food Security Status to Gardening- and Produce-Related

Behaviors and Intakes ...................................................................................................101

Table 15: Relationship of Female Caregivers’ Habits to Gardening- and Produce-Related

Behaviors and Intakes ...................................................................................................102

11 Table 16: Female Caregiver and Household Characteristics Stratified by Food Security

Status .............................................................................................................................104

Table 17: Female Caregiver Weight and Diet Characteristics Stratified by Food Security

Status……………………………………………………………………………….....106

Table 18: Female Caregiver Produce Readiness Stratified by Food Security

Status……………………………………………………………………………….....108

Table 19: Gardening Readiness and Habits of Female Caregivers Stratified by Food

Security Status ..............................................................................................................109

Table 20: Female Caregiver’s Perception of Children’s Produce Intake Stratified by Food

Security Status ..............................................................................................................110

Table 21: Female Caregiver’s Perception of Children’s Habits ...................................111

12

LIST OF FIGURES

Page Figure 1: Food security status of U.S. households in 2007 ............................................33 Figure 2: Food security and food insecurity trends in the U.S. from 1999-2007 ...........35 Figure 3: Weekly household food spending per person ..................................................43 Figure 4: Food-insecure household food assistance participation ..................................46 Figure 5: The Appalachian Region .................................................................................64 Figure 6: Appalachian Ohio Counties.............................................................................67

Figure 7. Child participants’ produce preference and intake variety ..............................92

Figure 8. Female caregiver participants weight classification ........................................97

Figure 9. Female caregiver produce and gardening readiness………………………...100

Figure 10. Female caregiver body mass index and produce intake by food security

status…………………………………………………………………………………..107

13

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Overview and Background

Appalachia is an area of the United States that is characterized by low educational

attainment, high poverty, and poor health. The area is made up of parts of 12 states and

all of West Virginia, with almost half of the area being rural (Smith & Grant, 2008).

Some studies also support that its rates of food insecurity, overweight and obesity,

diabetes, and chronic disease are above those of the rest of the nation (Crooks, 1999;

Demerath et al., 2003; Denham, Meyer, Toborg, & Mande, 2004; Holben, McClincy,

Holcomb, Dean, & Walker, 2004; Holben & Pheley, 2006; Kropf, Holben, Holcomb, &

Anderson, 2007; Pheley, Holben, Graham, & Simpson, 2002; Rappaport & Robbins,

2005; Tulkki et al., 2006; Walker, Holben, Kropf, Holcomb, & Anderson, 2007; Wewers,

Katz, Fickle, & Paskett, 2006). More specifically, and in relation to poverty and food

access, food insecurity has been found to be a concern to Appalachian residents (Holben,

Barnett, & Holcomb, 2006; Holben et al., 2004; Holben & Pheley, 2006; Hutson, Dorgan,

Phillips, & Behringer, 2007; Kendall, Olson, & Frongillo, 1996; Kropf et al., 2007;

Pheley et al., 2002; Tessaro, Mangone, Parkar, & Pawar, 2006; Walker et al., 2007;

Wewers et al., 2006). In fact, in the proposed study region of Appalachian Ohio, food

insecurity was found to be three times the level of the rest of the state, as well as almost

double the rate of the nation (Holben et al., 2004; Holben & Pheley, 2006; Kropf et al.,

2007; Meek, 2005; Pheley et al., 2002; Walker et al., 2007).

Food insecurity has been associated with many health problems among household

members across the lifespan (Alaimo, Olson, & Frongillo, 2002; Bronte-Tinkew, Zaslow,

14 Capps, Horowitz, & McNamara, 2007; Casey et al., 2005; Cook et al., 2004; Cook et al.,

2008; Hamelin, Habicht, & Beaudry, 1999; Pheley et al., 2002; Seligman, Bindman,

Vittinghoff, Kanaya, & Kushel, 2007; Stuff et al., 2004; Tarasuk & Beaton, 1999;

Vozoris & Tarasuk, 2003; Walker et al., 2007). Obesity rates, diabetes, and Hemoglobin

A1C levels have all been found to be greater in food-insecure households as compared to

their counterparts in Appalachian Ohio (Holben & Pheley, 2006). Overall, poorer self-

reported physical and mental health was associated with food insecurity in Appalachian,

even in households with minimal food insecurity (Pheley et al., 2002). Physical health is

not only in jeopardy when households are food insecure; mental and overall health can

also be affected in both adults and children (Alaimo et al., 2002; Bronte-Tinkew et al.,

2007; Casey et al., 2004; Casey et al., 2005; Casey et al., 2006; Cook et al., 2006; Cook

et al., 2008; Holben et al., 2006; Holben et al., 2006; Pheley et al., 2002; Rose & Bodor,

2006; Skalicky et al., 2006; Wilde & Peterman, 2006)

Food insecurity negatively impacts multiple aspects of the diet, including both

quality and quantity of food consumed (Chang, Nitzke, Guilford, Adair, & Hazard, 2008;

Condrasky & Marsh, 2005; Langevin et al., 2007; McIntyre et al., 2003; Vozoris &

Tarasuk, 2003). Such households have been found to have below the recommended

intakes of kilocalories, calcium, vitamin B-6, magnesium, iron, and zinc, compared to

those in food-secure households (Dixon, Winkleby, & Radimer, 2001; Matheson,

Varady, Varady, & Killen, 2002; Olson, 1999; Rose & Oliveira, 1997). Studies have

shown food-insecure households to be of particular concern in relation to decreased

produce intake, leading potentially to increased risk for certain cancers, cardiovascular

15 disease, and lower overall wellness (Ahn et al., 2005; Cartmel, Bowen, Ross, Johnson, &

Mayne, 2005; Dixon et al., 2001; Genkinger, Platz, Hoffman, Comstock, & Helzlsouer,

2004; Guenther, Dodd, Reedy, & Krebs-Smith, 2006; Kendall et al., 1996; Kirsh et al.,

2007; Larsson, Hakansson, Naslund, Bergkvist, & Wolk, 2006; Lee et al., 2006; Pierce et

al., 2007; Pierce, Stefanick et al., 2007). For children, food insecurity can negatively

impact diet, including decreased produce intake, which may negatively affect health

(Casey et al., 2005; Casey et al., 2006; Cook et al., 2006; Dixon et al., 2001; Fu, Cheng,

Tu, & Pan, 2007; Lakkakula, Zanovec, Silverman, Murphy, & Tuuri, 2008; Langevin et

al., 2007; Riediger, Shooshtari, & Moghadasian, 2007).

Federal food assistance programs have been developed to improve nutritional

status of Americans, including Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infant, and Children (WIC), School

Meals Programs, and local programs (e.g., Community Food Initiatives), all of which

strive to increase the produce intake among participants (Food and Nutrition Service,

2008; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008; U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c; Zerbian, 2007). In order to further increase

produce intake in food-insecure families and decrease their risk for such chronic

problems, a variety of community-based programs and interventions have been

developed, including produce distribution and gardening programs (Hazen, Holben,

Holcomb, & Struble, 2008; Kropf et al., 2007; Nanney, Johnson, Elliott, & Haire-Joshu,

2007; Struble, Holben, Hazen, & Holcomb, 2008). Gardening, in particular, has been

shown to increase access to fruits and vegetables in the face of food insecurity, and is a

16 relatively inexpensive way to grow fresh produce (Holben et al., 2004; McAleese &

Rankin, 2007; Nanney, Johnson et al., 2007; Rose & Richards, 2004). Further, gardening

interventions have been shown to positively impact produce intake of children and their

households, which may also increase their food security (Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr,

2005; Hermann et al., 2006; Holben et al., 2004; McAleese & Rankin, 2007; Morris &

Zidenberg-Cherr, 2002). A variety of methods have been used by these programs,

including varying time frames, lessons, and venues across the United States (Robinson-

O'Brien, Story, & Heim, 2009). However, none have been done in Appalachian Ohio,

other than the federal and non-federal programs offered.

Gardening may be a particularly effective strategy for a variety of reasons.

Nanney et al. (2007) found that those families in rural areas who ate homegrown produce

had an increase in produce availability, along with an increase in their child’s preference

for new fruits and vegetables. In fact, gardening projects have been done to improve the

health and fruit and vegetable intake of the participants, with most having positive

impacts on their participants’ produce intake and gardening and nutrition knowledge

(Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005; Hermann et al., 2006; McAleese & Rankin, 2007;

Morris & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2002; Nanney, Johnson et al., 2007; Stables et al., 2005; Van

Duyn & Pivonka, 2000). Compared to other interventions, gardening is an inexpensive

way to increase produce intake as well as physical activity in households (Graham &

Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005; McAleese & Rankin, 2007; Nanney, Johnson et al., 2007).

17

Statement of the Problem

Produce intake is inadequate among children, which negatively impacts diet (Ball,

Benjamin, & Ward, 2008; Gao, Wilde, Lichtenstein, & Tucker, 2006; Langevin et al.,

2007; Lorson, Melgar-Quinonez, & Taylor, 2009). It was recently reported that fruits and

vegetables can reduce cardiovascular problems in adolescents (Holt et al., 2009).

However, children do not typically meet the required intakes for fruits and vegetables,

and most servings come from potatoes and fruit juices (Lorson et al., 2009). In the study

region, multiple studies have indicated the need for intervention in the Southeastern Ohio

Appalachian region in relation to promoting fruit and vegetable intake (Ball et al., 2008;

Cassady, Jetter, & Culp, 2007; Holben et al., 2004; Kropf et al., 2007; Luszczynska,

Tryburcy, & Schwarzer, 2007; Walker et al., 2007; Wewers et al., 2006). One potential

solution is to introduce gardening to children, who may, in turn, influence the entire

household’s habits surrounding gardening and produce. Through the introduction of

gardening, study area children will not only be involved directly in their own food

production, but will potentially improve food security in their households.

Purposes of the Study

Fruit and vegetable intake has been found to be related to household food security

(Bhattacharya, Currie, & Haider, 2004; Dixon et al., 2001; Kendall et al., 1996; Kropf et

al., 2007). For adult females and children living in food-insecure households, fruits and

vegetables are typically the first groups reduced from the diet, due to their higher price

and shorter shelf life, compared to other foods (Cassady et al., 2007; Dixon et al., 2001;

18 Kendall et al., 1996; Kropf et al., 2007). Therefore, through the practice of gardening, a

family may be able to grow fruits and vegetables at a lower cost than purchasing them,

while increasing both physical activity and produce intake.

Given the paucity of data surrounding this area of nutrition and related

effectiveness of gardening programs in improving both food security and produce intake,

the purposes of this study were to: (a) measured the effect of a nutrition and gardening

education program on Appalachian children’s fruit and vegetable intakes and preferences;

and (b) examined the relationship of food security status to gardening habits and

perceptions, produce intake, and personal characteristics of children and their adult

female caregivers.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

This study answered the research questions summarized in Table 1. Hypotheses

for the questions are also summarized in Table 1.

19 Table 1

Research Questions and Hypotheses Research Questions

Hypotheses

1. Does a six-week nutrition and gardening education program improve children’s preference for and intake of fruits and vegetables?

A six-week nutrition and gardening education program positively impacts children’s fruit and vegetable intakes and preferences.

2. At the onset of the study, is household food security status related to the female caregiver’s perception of the gardening habits of the children?

Food insecurity is associated with fewer gardening habits of the children as perceived by the female caregiver.

3. At the onset of the study, is household food security status related to the female caregiver’s gardening readiness?

Food insecurity is associated with decreased gardening readiness of the female caregiver.

4. At the onset of the study, is household food security status related to produce intake of female caregiver?

Food security is inversely associated with female caregiver’s produce intakes.

5. At the onset of the study, are the female caregiver’s gardening habits related to their perceptions of the child’s gardening habits?

Child’s gardening habits are positively associated with their female caregiver’s gardening habits.

6. At the onset of the study, is household food security status related to produce preferences and intakes of child participants?

Food insecurity is associated with decreased produce preferences and intakes of child participants.

7. At the onset of the study, are the child’s produce intake and preferences related to their female caregiver’s produce intakes?

Child’s produce intake and perceptions are positively associated with their female caregiver’s produce intake.

8. At the onset of the study, are the child’s produce intake and preferences related to their female caregiver’s gardening habits?

Child’s produce intake and perceptions are positively associated with their female caregiver’s gardening habits.

20

9. Do body mass index (BMI), vegetable intake, and fruit intake differ between female caregivers from food-secure versus food-insecure households?

Body mass index (BMI) will be greater and both vegetable and fruit intakes will lower in female caregivers from food-insecure households compared to food-secure households.

10. Do marital status, education level, transportation, hunting, fishing, food assistance program participation, perceived health level, diet quality, body mass index category, and produce and gardening readiness differ between female caregivers from food-secure versus food-insecure households?

Food-insecure female caregivers will be single and have lower education, diet quality, and health status while having higher body mass index and food assistance program participation than food-secure females. Food-insecure females will also have lower produce and gardening readiness than those from food-secure households.

Significance of the Study

As previously discussed, food insecurity is associated with decreased produce

intake. This may be especially prevalent in distressed areas such as Athens County,

Ohio, where access to and availability of produce are concerns for food-insecure homes.

Through the implementation of this program, the child participants became more aware

of basic nutrition concepts, as well as gardening skills, that they can share with their

families in order to increase their fruit and vegetable intake, as well as food security.

Multiple groups have the potential of benefiting from this program and research,

especially the children involved and their families. They not only received the direct

benefit of the education and produce distribution, but they were also able to use the

knowledge and skills after the program’s completion through the development of their

own garden. Other groups that may benefit included the Kids on Campus Program

21 (university-based summer camp), where this program was initially piloted. Finally, the

dietetics and nutrition profession may benefit from this research by using the findings as

a basis for further research and program development.

Practical outcomes of this project, other than its benefits to future research,

include stimulation of similar programs developing in the future. Since this was a pilot

study, improvements could be made in order to re-evaluate its effectiveness in the

original age group studied, or target other ages or populations in different regions of the

country for evaluation.

The unique aspect of this program, compared to previous studies, is that it focused

in the region of Appalachian Ohio. Based upon the literature related to food security in

and the culture of the Appalachian region, as well as pediatric nutrition studies and

surveillance data, the program was developed.

Potential Delimitations and Limitations

Potential limitations of this pilot study include the pilot nature of program and

study, potential for children to be absent for parts of the program or to discontinue

participation in the study, limited participation of the family members/caregivers, literacy

level of all participants, and use of children and families participating in the camp rather

than a randomly selected sample. These limitations could hinder participant selection and

recruitment, as well as the effectiveness of the program.

Potential delimitations, or those factors out of our control that could hinder our

study, include summer camp practices (participant selection, daily schedule), climate of

22 the study region during the study period, and the availability of produce from farmers for

distribution during the study. In addition, since this study utilized convenience sampling,

we were unable to randomly sample the children living in the area or select for particular

demographics.

To overcome these limitations and delimitations, we closely collaborated with the

summer camp program staff and utilized local farmers for produce who typically are

successful.

Definition of Terms

Food security: Access by all people at all times to enough food for an active,

healthy life and includes at a minimum: a) the ready availability of nutritionally adequate

and safe foods, and b) the assured ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially

acceptable ways (e.g., without resorting to emergency food supplies, scavenging,

stealing, and other coping strategies; Anderson, 1990, p. 1560).

Food insecurity: Whenever the availability of nutritionally adequate and safe

foods or the ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways is limited or

uncertain (Anderson, 1990, p. 1560).

Community food security: Prevention-oriented concept that supports the

development and enhancement of sustainable, community-based strategies: to improve

access of low-income households to healthful nutritious food supplies; to increase the

self-reliance of communities in providing for their own food needs; and to promote

comprehensive responses to local food, farm, and nutrition issues (Andrews, 2008).

23

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In the United States, food insecurity can lead to an increased risk for health

problems, poor diet, and lack of fruit and vegetable intake (Bhattacharya et al., 2004;

Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2007; Carmichael, Yang, Herring, Abrams, & Shaw, 2007; Casey

et al., 2005; Cook et al., 2004; Cook et al., 2006; Cook et al., 2008; Gundersen, Lohman,

Garasky, Stewart, & Eisenmann, 2008; Hazen et al., 2008; Holben et al., 2006; Holben et

al., 2004; Holben & Pheley, 2006; Jyoti, Frongillo, & Jones, 2005; Kropf et al., 2007;

Lee & Frongillo, 2001; Lyons, Park, & Nelson, 2008; Matheson et al., 2002; C. M.

Olson, Bove, & Miller, 2007; Rose & Bodor, 2006; Skalicky et al., 2006; Struble et al.,

2008; Stuff et al., 2004; Tanumihardjo et al., 2007; Walker et al., 2007; Weinreb et al.,

2002). These effects are particularly important for children in food-insecure households

because such health problems and diet habits could follow them and exacerbate

throughout life (Connell, Lofton, Yadrick, & Rehner, 2005; Olson et al., 2007).

Appalachia has been shown to be at higher risk for food insecurity and its

associated outcomes than the rest of the nation (Hazen et al., 2008; Holben et al., 2006;

Holben et al., 2004; Holben & Pheley, 2006; Kendall et al., 1996; Kropf et al., 2007;

Meek, 2005; Pheley et al., 2002; Struble et al., 2008; Walker et al., 2007). Therefore, an

intervention focusing on nutrition, gardening, and produce intake may alleviate some of

these problems for children in Appalachian Ohio. This study was conducted to: (a)

measure the effect of a nutrition and gardening education program on Appalachian

children’s fruit and vegetable intakes and preferences; and (b) examine the relationship of

food security status to gardening habits and perceptions, produce intake, and personal

24 characteristics of children and their adult female caregivers. In this literature review,

findings related to food security, Appalachia, produce intake, and gardening are

reviewed.

Food Security

Definitions

Food security is defined as “access by all people at all times to enough food for an

active, healthy life and includes at a minimum: (a) the ready availability of nutritionally

adequate and safe foods, and (b) the assured ability to acquire acceptable foods in

socially acceptable ways (e.g., without resorting to emergency food supplies, scavenging,

stealing, and other coping strategies)” (Anderson, 1990, p. 1560). Food insecurity is

defined as “whenever the availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or the

ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways is limited or uncertain”

(Anderson, 1990, p. 1560). Hunger is a condition that is not always associated with food

insecurity, however is defined as an individual physiological condition due to prolonged

lack of food causing weakness, illness, and pain (Anderson, 1990). Both individuals and

overall households can experience hunger (Radimer, Olson, & Campbell, 1990).

Household hunger can be composed of one or more of the following: food depletion;

food unsuitability; and food anxiety (Radimer et al., 1990). Individual hunger consists of

intake insufficiency, diet inadequacy, and disrupted eating patterns (Radimer et al.,

1990). Since there are so many aspects to it, hunger is difficult to define for each

individual which leads to multiple definitions. The Food Research and Action Center

25 (FRAC) defined hunger as the physiological and psychological state that comes from not

having enough food, while Harvard School of Public Health defined it as chronic under

consumption of food and nutrients (Radimer & Radimer, 2002).

Community food security is difficult to assess. However, it is basically defined as

the attempt to increase the food security of a community through the use of education and

programs. The U.S Department of Agriculture defines it as a prevention-oriented concept

that supports the development and enhancement of sustainable, community-based

strategies which improve access of low-income households to healthful nutritious food

supplies; increase the self-reliance of communities in providing for their own food needs;

and promote comprehensive responses to local food, farm, and nutrition issues (Andrews,

2008). As far as the community food security of Athens County, it has been found to be

compromised and in need of such food, farm, and nutrition interventions (Bletzacker,

Holben, & Holcomb, 2007).

Measurement of Food Security

The Food Security Measurement Project is a collaboration between federal

agencies, researchers, and non-profit organizations developed in response to the National

Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act (NNMRR) in 1990 with the objective to

develop a methodology to assess the food security status nationwide (Nord, 2008b). The

idea for food security measurement began in the 1980s when hunger emerged as a

growing concern in the United States (Nord, Andrews, & Carlson, 2008). The Harvard

School of Public Health and FRAC provided evidence to President Reagan’s Task Force

on Food Assistance urging for an investigation into the allegations of increasing hunger

26 (Carlson, Andrews, & Bickel, 1999; Olson, 1999). After developing the definitions of

food security, the team focused on the development of the instrument for measurement.

Through the team work of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the

Community Childhood Hunger Identification Project (CCHIP), an 18-item questionnaire

was developed to determine the multiple levels of food security occurring in American

households which was first administered as a supplement to the Current Population

Survey (CPS) in 1995 (Nord et al., 2008; Nord, 2008b). The questions for the Food

Security Survey Module (FSSM) were developed through extensive research by a team of

experts in the field, along with field testing and validation (Nord, 2008b). The FSSM has

since been used by governmental and other researchers. For example, the instrument has

been used in the Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII), the National

Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the Early Childhood Longitudinal

Study (ECLS), the Panel Survey of Income Dynamics (PSID), and the Survey of Program

Dynamics (SPD; Bickel, Nord, Price, Hamilton, & Cook, 2000; Nord et al., 2008).

The FSSM is an 18-item survey with questions listed in order of severity, from

least to most which aids in the categorization of the participant (Carlson et al., 1999;

Radimer & Radimer, 2002). Each question uses key phrasing, including “because we

could not afford it” and “because there was not enough money”, in order to assess food

security based on financial reasons over the past 12 months (Bickel et al., 2000). Some of

the wording varied from 1995 to 1998, however the core questions have remained

unchanged (Bickel et al., 2000). The questions for the 18-item survey are shown in Table

2, while the scoring is found in Appendix A.

27 Table 2

18-item Food Security Survey Module, 2008

Item Number Question

Q1 “We worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy more.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

Q2 “The food that we bought just didn’t last and we didn’t have money to get more.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

Q3 “We couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

Q4 In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in the household ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

Q5 (If yes to Question 4) How often did this happen—almost every month, some months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?

Q6 In the last 12 months, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

Q7 In the last 12 months, were you ever hungry, but didn’t eat, because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

Q8 In the last 12 months, did you lose weight because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

Q9 In the last 12 months did you or other adults in your household ever not eat for a whole day because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)


Questions 11-18 are asked only if the household included children ages 0-18

28 Q11 “We relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed our

children because we were running out of money to buy food.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

Q12 “We couldn’t feed our children a balanced meal, because we couldn’t afford that.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

Q13 “The children were not eating enough because we just couldn’t afford enough food.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

Q14 In the last 12 months, did you ever cut the size of any of the children’s meals because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

Q15 In the last 12 months, were the children ever hungry but you just couldn’t afford more food? (Yes/No)

Q16 In the last 12 months, did any of the children ever skip a meal because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)


Q18 In the last 12 months, did any of the children ever not eat for a whole day because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

Note. From “Guide to Measuring Household Food Security, Revised 2000,” by G. Bickel, 2000, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 6, p. 22. Copyright 2000 by USDA. Reprinted with permission.

Per Appendix A, households are considered food-secure if they report only one or

two food-insecure conditions. Food-insecure households are defined by having three or

more food-insecure conditions (Nord et al., 2008). Food insecurity is broken down into

multiple categories depending on the number of affirmative answers. Low food security

is classified as having multiple indications of food access, but few reduced intake

patterns. Very low food security, which is typically the situation where children are

29 affected, is when the household reported to being hungry at some point due to lack of

money for food (Nord et al., 2008). This category breakdown is shown below in Table 3

with both the old categories and new categories represented.

Table 3

Food Security Categories Defined by the USDA

Old Categories (1995-2005)

New Categories (2006- present)

Scale Scores (18-item)

Associated Conditions

Food-secure

Food-secure High food security

0 affirmative responses

No reported indications of food-access problems or limitations

Marginal

food security 1-2 affirmative responses

One or two reported indications—typically of anxiety over food security or shortage of food in the house. Little or no indication of changes in diets or food intake

Food-insecure

Food-insecure without hunger

Low food security

3-5 affirmative responses

Reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or no indication of reduced food intake

Food-insecure with hunger

Very low food security

6 or more affirmative responses

Reports of multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake

Note. Adapted from “Food Security in the United States: Definitions of Hunger and Food Security,” by M. Nord, 2008, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Copyright 2006 by the USDA. Reprinted with permission.

30

Over the years, the 18-item survey has been adjusted to fit multiple situations,

populations, and households. A shortened form of the Food Security Scale was developed

in 1995 for research projects with less funding and time (Blumberg, Bialostosky,

Hamilton, & Briefel, 1999). Researchers narrowed the original 18-item survey down to

six questions, which still accurately assessed the food security status of the household,

but are not specific to children (Blumberg et al., 1999). In order to validate the survey for

most households and remain time effective, the researchers removed the eight questions

which are asked solely for households with children (Blumberg et al., 1999). This was

found to have little effect on the validity of the tool, and so the survey was further

shortened from ten remaining questions down to six, leaving the original questions 2, 3,

5, 7, 8, and 10 (Blumberg et al., 1999). The now 6-item, shortened form was tested with

both households with and without children resulting in 82.8% and 92.3 % accuracy

respectively. Both tools have been used in multiple research projects and validated for

multiple population groups ( Frongillo Jr, 1999; Opsomer, Jensen, & Pan, 2003; Swindale

& Bilinsky, 2006). The questions for the six-item survey are in Table 4, with the scoring

found in Appendix A.

31 Table 4

Six-item Food Security Questionnaire, 2008


The first four questions are in relation to the family’s food intake

Q5 In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in your household, ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there wasn’t enough money for food?

Q8 (Ask only if Yes to Q5)

How often did this happen- almost every month, some months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?

Q7 In the last 12 months, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn’t enough money to buy food?

Q10 In the last 12 months, were you ever hungry but didn’t eat because you couldn’t afford enough food?

The last two questions are in relation to the family’s food situation

Q2 “The food that I/we bought just didn’t last and I/we didn’t have money to get more.” Was that often, sometimes, or never trough for you in the last 12 months?

Q3 “I/we couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

Note. From “The Effectiveness of a Short Form of the Household Food Security Scale,” S. Blumberg, 1999, American Journal of Public Health, 89, p. 1234. Copyright 1999 by the USDA. Reprinted with permission.

Food Security in the United States

Estimates of food security in the United States are calculated from the annual

Current Population Survey (CPS). The CPS is a monthly survey of 50,000 households

which includes an assessment of the food security of the nation through the use of the 18-

32 item Food Security Survey Module, which asks households about their behaviors and

conditions over the past 12 months (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). The FSSM is included in

the December distribution of the CPS. The questions are finance- related as to exclude

those who are purposely dieting or cutting back for other reasons. For example,

approximately 45,600 households made of civilian, non-institutionalized citizens of the

nation were utilized in 2007 (Nord et al., 2008).

Statistics on the food security of the United States have been collected since 1995.

In 2007, 88.9% of households were found to be food-secure while the other 11.1%, or 13

million, were food-insecure (Nord et al., 2008). Of those who were food-insecure, 7.0%

were households with low food security and 4.1% were found to have very low food

security. Figure 1 below illustrates the 2007 estimates.

33

Figure 1. Food security status of U.S. households in 2007. Note. Adapted from “Household Food Security in the United States, 2007,” by M. Nord, 2008, Economic Research Service/USDA , ERR-66, p. 4. Copyright 2008 by the USDA. Adapted with permission.

Of the 4.7 million households who were determined to have very low food

security in 2007, there were several conditions reported as a part of this phenomenon:

98 % worried that their food would run out before they got money to buy more; 97 %

reported that the food they bought just did not last and they did not have money to get

more; 94 % reported that they could not afford to eat balanced meals; 96 % reported that

an adult had cut the size of meals or skipped meals because there was not enough money

for food; and 93 % reported that they had eaten less than they felt they should because

Food Secure Households

89%

Low Food Secure Households

7% Very Low Food Secure Households

4%

34 there was not enough money for food (Nord et al., 2008). When food insecurity did

occur, about one-fourth of those households had problems chronically for at least seven

months out of the year (Nord et al., 2008).

The rates of both food security and food insecurity have not changed drastically in

the past ten years. The prevalence has changed less than one percent since 1999

according to the data collected from the CPS surveys (Nord et al., 2008). The data from

1999 on is based on the consistent FSSM after adjustments and changes were made from

1995 through 1998 (Bickel et al., 2000). Figure 2 below shows further detail of the trends

in food security over the past ten years.

35

Figure 2. Food security and food insecurity trends in the U.S. from 1999-2007. Note. Adapted from “Household Food Security in the United States, 2007,” by M. Nord, 2008, Economic Research Service/USDA , ERR-66, p. 6. Copyright 2008 by the USDA. Adapted with permission.

Even though the FSSM is distributed through the CPS annually in December, it

has not always been that way. Originally, the FSSM was included in the April 1995 CPS,

and then changed from September, August, and back to April from 1996 through 1998

(Bickel et al., 2000; Nord et al., 2008). December was finally chosen as the month for the

FSSM distribution in 2001, which in turn keeps the data consistent from year to year

without seasonal influence (Nord et al., 2008).

Between 1988 and 1994, before the official measurement of food security began,

4.1% lived in families that reported food insecurity, which was due to lack of money,

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Food Insecurity 10% 10% 11% 11% 11% 12% 11% 11% 11%Food Security 90% 90% 89% 89% 89% 88% 89% 89% 89%

82%

84%

86%

88%

90%

92%

94%

96%

98%

100%

Perc

enta

ge o

f Hou

seho

lds

36 food stamps, or vouchers from WIC (Alaimo, Briefel, Frongillo, & Olson, 1998). A little

over 2% of these families had children under 17 who cut the size or skipped meals due to

lack of money (Alaimo et al., 1998).

Risk Factors for Food Insecurity

Risk factors for food insecurity include lower education, lower income, being

from an ethnic minority, living in a non-suburban residence, and participation in

government assistance programs (Adams, Grummer-Strawn, & Chavez, 2003; Alaimo et

al., 1998; Alaimo, Olson, & Frongillo, 2001b; Bhattacharya et al., 2004; Cutts, Pheley, &

Geppert, 1998; Gundersen et al., 2008; Herman, Harrison, Afifi, & Jenks, 2004; Holben

& Myles, 2004; Jones & Frongillo, 2006; Nord et al., 2008; Oberholser & Tuttle, 2004;

Quandt et al., 2004; Quandt, Arcury, Early, Tapia, & Davis, 2004; Rose, 1999).

Characteristics associated with being food-insecure in 2007 included households: (a) with

incomes below the poverty line; (b) with children; (c) headed by a single person; and (d)

headed by African-American or Hispanic individuals (Nord et al., 2008). Of the

population surveyed in 2007, 37.7% of those households were below the poverty line of

$21,027 in income for a family of four (Nord et al., 2008). Those households with

children headed by a single parent made up 48.2% of the food-insecure population (Nord

et al., 2008). Both single male or female headed households were at greater risk for food

insecurity, compared to other households (Nord et al., 2008). In another study, in fact,

both divorced men and women were found to have lower food security status than when

they were in a relationship (Hanson, Sobal, & Frongillo, 2007). African-American and

Hispanic based households made up 42.3% of the food-insecure group in 2007, with all

37 of these groups having the most occurrence of very low food security (Nord et al., 2008).

Below are facts from the literature discussing the risk factors, outcomes, and further

developments found. Overall, it has been found that those living in households

characterized by food insecurity tend to be in households with children, headed by a

single adult, being an African-American or Hispanic, with income below the poverty line,

and located in metropolitan areas (Nord et al., 2008).

Poverty is a key component of food insecurity. One-fifth of study participants

nationwide under the poverty level in 1998 were food-insecure (Nelson, Cunningham,

Andersen, Harrison, & Gelberg, 2001). A study done in 2006 found many differences

between food-secure and insecure women in particular. Food-insecure women were

younger, less educated, single, with lower incomes than their counterparts and 61% of

them were overweight (Jones & Frongillo, 2006). Food assistance program participation

has also been associated with food insecurity and poverty. A household must meet

specific financial and resource requirements in order to be eligible for food assistance

programs, which are between 185% and 130% of the poverty level (Food and Nutrition

Service, 2008; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009b, 2009c). It was

found that 34% of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants in a

Maryland study sometimes did not have enough food to eat, or to provide adequate food

consistently (Oberholser & Tuttle, 2004). A study done with SNAP Participants found

that 66% of participants had some level of food insecurity with 7% being food-insecure

with hunger (Oberholser & Tuttle, 2004). In addition to food insecurity, lack of income

may also compromise the ability to properly heat and cool the home. Another study

38 found that energy security was strongly and positively associated with both household

and child food insecurity (Cook et al., 2008).

All of these factors narrow down to mainly single, poor, low-educated women

who are having trouble providing consistent access to nutritious for their families. These

risks combined affect household diet, chronic disease risk, and weight of both children

and female adults. Even with participation in government assistance programs, such as

the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) and

SNAP, additional help may be needed due to the self-selection effect (Holben &

American Dietetic Association (ADA), 2006). This self-selection phenomenon explains

the higher occurrence of food-insecure participants in food assistance programs by saying

these households seek assistance due to social perception that it is needed (Holben &

ADA, 2006). Therefore any type of intervention that can teach self sufficiency or provide

assistance to both these mothers and their children could help offset struggling

households.

Outcomes of Food Insecurity in Adults

Food insecurity has multiple household consequences and/or associations,

including poor health, restricted activity, multiple chronic conditions, depression,

physical impairment, psychological suffering, and family disturbances (Hamelin et al.,

1999; Holben & ADA, 2006; Vozoris & Tarasuk, 2003). More specifically, food

insecurity has been associated with higher chronic disease risk including obesity,

diabetes, as well as mental and overall health (Hamelin et al., 1999; Hanson et al., 2007;

Holben & Pheley, 2006; Pheley et al., 2002; Stuff et al., 2004). Physical and dietary

39 implications also occur in food-insecure households including hunger, depletion, illness,

stress, modification of eating habits, and disrupted household food management (Hamelin

et al., 1999; Holben & ADA, 2006; Kendall et al., 1996; Olson, 2005).

Food insecurity and chronic disease risk among adults.

Food insecurity is associated with increased risk for chronic disease and poor

management of the conditions. It has been found that food-insecure participants were

twice as likely to have diabetes as food-secure participants (Seligman et al., 2007). In a

study done in 2006, individuals with diabetes were more likely to live in food-insecure

households (Holben & Pheley, 2006). The study also found that individuals living in

food-insecure households were more likely to have HbA1c levels higher than the

recommended level of seven (Holben & Pheley, 2006). Poor management of diabetes can

lead to future health consequences for these individuals that they may not be able to

afford or manage. Food insecurity and financial restraints were also related to diabetes

(Nelson et al., 2001). Six percent of diabetic participants reported problems with food

insecurity and finances related to their diabetes management (Nelson et al., 2001). Food-

insecure individuals were more likely to report having heart disease, diabetes, high blood

pressure, and allergies in 2003 (Vozoris & Tarasuk, 2003).

Food insecurity and overweight/obesity among adults.

Adult individuals living in a food-insecure household, especially females, are

more likely to be obese than those in food-secure households (Lyons et al., 2008; Martin

& Ferris, 2007). One study done in Canada found that the rates of obesity coincided with

the rates of food insecurity (Lyons et al., 2008). In national surveys, researchers found

40 that obesity was lowest for fully food-secure women, while those who were food-

insecure had the most weight gain over time (Hanson et al., 2007; Wilde & Peterman,

2006). Women in California were also found to have an increased risk for obesity when

classified as food-insecure, with almost one-fifth of food-insecure subjects being obese

(Adams et al., 2003). Those women in food-insecure households were almost twice as

likely to be overweight or obese as those in food-secure households (Adams et al., 2003).

As discussed above, obesity has been linked as a consequence of food insecurity

even though it seems to be counter intuitive. Food-insecurity is associated with lack of

food for a nutritious, healthy life. However, high calorie, high fat, low nutrient dense

foods tend to be less expensive than low calorie, low fat, and high nutrient dense items

(Mendoza, Drewnowski, Cheadle, & Christakis, 2006). Therefore, these empty calorie

foods replace the more nutritious options leading to weight gain.

Women especially have been directly affected by this obesity trend (Adams et al.,

2003; Holben & Pheley, 2006; Jones & Frongillo, 2006; Lyons et al., 2008; Olson, 1999;

Townsend, Peerson, Love, Achterberg, & Murphy, 2001; Wilde & Peterman, 2006).

Women in food-insecure households have been found to have an overall higher body

mass than those in food-secure households (Olson, 2005). Nationwide data collected in

1999 found a strong association between food-insecurity and overweight status,

especially in women who were initially normal weight (Jones & Frongillo, 2007). In rural

New York, it was found that obesity in early-pregnancy was positively associated with

food-insecurity in post-partum women (Olson & Strawderman, 2008). It was reported

that 19.3% of women changed food insecurity category from the beginning of pregnancy

41 to 2 years postpartum, whereas only 5.1% changed category for obesity (Olson &

Strawderman, 2008). This infers that obesity may have a stronger correlation to food

insecurity, rather than food insecurity to obesity. There have been nationwide please for

federal support of research that focuses on the causes, mechanisms, practices, therapies,

and interventions in relation to overweight and obesity in all populations (Lyznicki,

Young, Riggs, Davis, & Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association,

2001).

Conflicting findings exist with regard to food insecurity and overweight and

obesity in households. Food security was not related to overweight or obesity in low-

income Massachusetts study participants; however food assistance participation was

correlated (Webb, Schiff, Currivan, & Villamor, 2008). Another study done over multiple

cities in the U.S. found that a participant’s change of food security status was not

significantly associated with their change in weight (Whitaker & Sarin, 2007). In fact,

those participants who began the study as food-secure and changed over the course of

two years did not change in weight any more than participants whose food security status

remained unchanged (Whitaker & Sarin, 2007).

Food insecurity and overall health among adults.

Food insecurity has been associated with many other health problems besides

chronic disease, including increased risk for birth defects, maternal depression, suicide

attempts, depression, and overall poor health (Alaimo et al., 2002; Carmichael et al.,

2007). It was found that 53% of mothers who reported food insecurity in their family also

had depression (Casey et al., 2004). One study found as food insecurity rises, overall

42 health status falls (Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2007). The elderly are a group whose health is

heavily affected by food insecurity. Those who reported food insecurity also reported

poor overall health more often than those who were food-secure (Lee & Frongillo, 2001).

All of these health problems could be alleviated with more consistent access to healthy

food and education for these families.

Food insecurity and diet among adults.

Food insecurity negatively impacts multiple aspects of the diet, including

decreased quality and quantity of food intake and diet (Chang et al., 2008; Condrasky &

Marsh, 2005; Kendall et al., 1996; Langevin et al., 2007; McIntyre et al., 2003; Olson,

2005; Vozoris & Tarasuk, 2003). Diets of individuals living in households characterized

by food insecurity have been found to have below the recommended intake of

kilocalories, protein, calcium, vitamins B-6 and B-12, riboflavin, niacin, magnesium,

iron, and zinc, compared to those living in food-secure households (Dixon et al., 2001;

Lee & Frongillo, 2001; Matheson et al., 2002; Olson, 1999; Rose & Oliveira, 1997).

Studies have shown food-insecure households to be of particular concern in relation to

decreased produce intake, as this can lead to increased risk for certain cancers,

cardiovascular disease, and lower overall wellness (Ahn et al., 2005; Cartmel et al., 2005;

Dixon et al., 2001; Genkinger et al., 2004; Guenther et al., 2006; Kendall et al., 1996;

Kirsh et al., 2007; Larsson et al., 2006; Lee et al., 2006; Pierce et al., 2007; Pierce,

Stefanick et al., 2007).

While diet inadequacy is related to food insecurity, eating habits of household

members may also suffer. Women in food-insecure households have been found to

43 decrease their intake in order to allow other members of the family to eat (Kendall et al.,

1996; Olson, 2005). Low-income families who are found to be food-insufficient spend

significantly less money per household member on food in 2001 (Casey, Szeto, Lensing,

Bogle, & Weber, 2001). Food-insecure households spend on average ten dollars less per

person on food per week (Nord et al., 2008). The amounts are shown in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3. Weekly household food spending per person. Note. Adapted from “Household Food Security in the United States, 2007,” by M. Nord, 2008, Economic Research Service/USDA , ERR-66, p. 26. Copyright 2008 by the USDA. Adapted with permission.

Over half of the women in a Toronto study living in food-insecure households

reported to having some hunger in the 30 days preceding the study (Tarasuk & Beaton,

1999). Hunger is typically a managed process with some women using coping tactics,

$45.00

$32.50 $33.33 $31.00

Food Secure Households

Food Insecure Households

Households with low food security

Households with very low food security

Weekly Household Food Spending Per Person

44 which typically include reducing their own intake to avoid or delay such insufficiency in

children (Olson, 2005; Radimer et al., 1990). In fact, women in food-insecure homes

have lower energy, protein, carbohydrate, fat, and essential nutrients, while their

children’s intake seem to be more adequate (McIntyre et al., 2003). It was also found

that the women’s average food and calcium intakes were positively associated with their

food security status, with those in more food-insecure homes having decreased intakes

(Tarasuk & Beaton, 1999). Both disordered eating (binge-like eating) and reliance on

others for food can cause disturbed eating patterns (Drewnowski & Specter, 2004;

Kendall et al., 1996; Olson, 2005), and lead to weight gain and poor health, which can

only heighten the health care burden on their family.

Prices and incomes greatly affect food choices, dietary habits, and dietary quality

(Drewnowski & Specter, 2004). Typically, more expensive, shorter shelf-life items, such

as fresh produce, dairy, and meat products, are substituted with cheaper items like

convenience foods and snacks (Dixon et al., 2001). As previously noted, adults in food-

insecure homes have lower intakes of energy, vitamin B-6, magnesium, iron, zinc, and

cereals (Dixon et al., 2001). While food insecurity also may lead to hunger, it is not

always the result (Nelson, Brown, & Lurie, 1998).

In addition to what has already been discussed, food insecurity also leads to

decreased produce intake, which may be improved by gardening. Eating fewer servings

of produce can have negative outcomes. For example, subjects in food-insecure

households were more likely to have lower vitamin C, fruit, and vegetable intake

(Kendall et al., 1996). Almost 75% of food-insecure subjects consumed two or fewer

45 fruits and vegetables per day, compared to 54.6% of food-secure participants (Kendall et

al., 1996). The rural population of America in a 1993 study decreased their fruit, salad,

carrots, and vegetable intake as their food insecurity status worsened, which can

negatively impact their health (Kendall et al., 1996). Another study found that those

families with preschool children living in rural areas who ate homegrown produce had an

increase in home availability of produce (Nanney, Johnson et al., 2007).

Gardening projects have been done in order to increase participants’ fruit and

vegetable intake and subsequently improve health (Robinson-O'Brien et al., 2009). Such

interventions are an inexpensive way to increase produce intake, since price is typically

seen as a barrier, as well as physical activity in households (Cassady et al., 2007).

Food insecurity and food assistance programs. Many food-insecure families

participate in food assistance programs, including SNAP, WIC, and the Summer Food

Service Program (Condrasky & Marsh, 2005; Nord et al., 2008; Oberholser & Tuttle,

2004). In 2007, more than half (53.9%) of food-insecure families studied participated in

a food assistance program in the 30 days previous to data collection (Nord et al., 2008).

The percentages of participants in the three main national programs are shown in Figure

4.

46

Figure 4. Food-insecure household food assistance participation. Note. Adapted from “Household Food Security in the United States, 2007,” by M. Nord, 2008, Economic Research Service/USDA , ERR-66, p. 33. Copyright 2008 by the USDA. Adapted with permission.

A study of SNAP participants in South Carolina found that 25% were food-

insecure with hunger, with more SNAP participants being food-insecure than non-

participants (Condrasky & Marsh, 2005). They also determined that participants ate less

at the end of the food cycle than at the beginning. Both weight and BMI also increased

SNAP School Lunch WIC

Any of the three

programsPercentage of food insecure

households participating 33.0% 33.6% 12.5% 53.9%

Percentage of very-low food security households

participating34.9% 28.1% 9.1% 50.9%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Perc

enta

ge o

f Hou

seho

lds

47 over the two year period (Condrasky & Marsh, 2005). This appears to indicate that, the

cyclical nature of SNAP may lead to disordered eating patterns, leading to weight gain.

In order to improve the food security of these families, a study was done with

SNAP participants that aimed to increase their access to produce in order to increase

produce intake. Researchers found increased supermarket access was associated with

increased fruit consumption but not significantly increased intake for vegetables (Rose &

Richards, 2004).

Some federal programs have attempted to include produce into their household

provisions. The WIC program recently changed their food packages to include more

allowance for purchase of fresh fruits and vegetables, along with fruit and vegetable

equivalents for all ages (Food and Nutrition Service, 2008). The WIC program also

created the Farmers Market Nutrition Program which allowed participating families to

use vouchers at the local farmers markets in order to increase their fresh produce intake.

It was found that this significantly improved the participant’s vegetable intake, but did

not make a great impact on their fruit intake (Kropf et al., 2007; Walker et al., 2007).

Another study focused on the transportation aspect of produce access by distributing

produce packages to low-income households (Hazen et al., 2008). The study found

positive results in increased produce intake with participants (Hazen et al., 2008). This

shows that if fresh vegetable access is increased, it might be less of a barrier to food-

insecure families and further aid them in bettering their diet.

When families lack food they may utilize socially unacceptable means of food

acquisition. A study done on low-income mothers in Canada found that 80% of them had

48 received free food over the past year from mostly food banks and relatives, and 75% of

the women were food-insecure (McIntyre et al., 2003). In a Canadian study done with

food bank participants, 69.9% of households were supported by welfare while 5.9%

relied on a combination of unemployment, loans, or other sources (Tarasuk & Beaton,

1999). A local study done with Ohio food pantry users found increased usage from food-

insecure households (O'Connell & Holben, 2005).

Outcomes of food insecurity in children

As previously mentioned, adults in the household are not the only household

members affected by lack of food, but when food insecurity is at its worst, children also

suffer. In most cases, children are protected from the harms of food insecurity; however

in 2007, 323,000 households had one or more children directly affected by food

insecurity (Nord et al., 2008). In 1998, there were 2.4 to 3.2 million children living in

food-insecure households, and the numbers are similar today (Alaimo et al., 1998; Nord

et al., 2008). Data collected in 1994 to 1996 from 3,837 households indicated that 7.5%

of the low-income families with children reported food insecurity, due to lack of money,

SNAPs, or WIC vouchers (Alaimo, Olson, Frongillo, & Briefel, 2001; Casey et al.,

2001). Lacking financial resources is a key feature of food insecurity. A 2006 study

found that 85% of the food-insecure children lived in houses below the 185% poverty

level (Rose & Bodor, 2006).

Food insecurity and overweight among children.

Overweight and obesity trends are not only seen in adults, but may also occur in

children. A 2006 nationwide household survey found that 17% of households with

49 children were food-insecure, with 15% of those children having a BMI in the overweight

or at risk for overweight categories (Casey et al., 2006). The same study determined that

children living in poverty-stricken and/or food-insecure households, independent of

demographic data, were more likely to be at risk for overweight (Casey et al., 2006). A

nationwide study using NHANES data collected from 1988 through 1994 found an

increased prevalence of food insecurity and overweight coexisting among low-income,

older white children in the United States (Alaimo et al., 2001b). Another nationwide

survey using USDA data found the energy density of the diet was related to both obesity

and food insecurity in children, with those living in the Midwest having the highest

energy density (Mendoza et al., 2006). It has also been found that the prevalence of

overweight in children is indirectly related to the family income. As a family’s income

increased their overweight status has been shown to decrease (Gordon-Larsen, Adair, &

Popkin, 2003).

Children from families with both lower parental education and income have been

found to be more at risk for being overweight (Haas et al., 2003). This not only affects

them during childhood, but may exacerbate health risks in adulthood. A study in 2007

found that if a child grew up in a low-income household, they had an increased likelihood

of being overweight later in life, as well as have poor eating habits (Olson et al., 2007).

Lack of insurance was also associated with being overweight, which could be related to

less health care visits for both parents and children.

When low-income families who were food insufficient were compared to low-

income families who were food sufficient, households with children were more likely to

50 be overweight and were less educated (Casey et al., 2001). However, not all studies of

food-insecure children have found an association between food insecurity and overweight

or obesity. In fact, one study reported that children who were classified as food-insecure

were in the intermediate BMI ranges and most reported as “trying to gain weight”

(Gulliford, Nunes, & Rocke, 2006).

Food insecurity and overall health status among children.

There are multiple associations between food insecurity, low income, overweight,

and health in children. A study done in the Mississippi Delta region in 2005 had similar

results as those done in the Appalachian region. Children in food-insecure households

had significantly lower physical and psychosocial functions as well as health related

quality of life (Casey et al., 2005). A study done in Texas using poor families found the

children had increased blood glucose, overweight, along with decreased fitness, calcium,

magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, and folate levels (Trevino et al., 2008).

Children living in food-insecure households are nearly twice as likely to report a

fair/poor health status as children in food-secure households (Cook et al., 2004). Those

food-insecure children also had tripled the chance of being hospitalized than food-secure

children (Cook et al., 2004). A nationwide study found that 85% of the food-insecure

children were from households that were below 185% of the poverty threshold; and

mothers with less than a college education were more likely to be overweight (Rose &

Bodor, 2006). One Appalachian Kentucky study found that children coming from

poverty-stricken, low-educated households were more likely to have stunted growth and

be obese than their counterparts, while another found similar results in Appalachian

51 Pennsylvania (Crooks, 1999; Haas et al., 2003; Rappaport & Robbins, 2005). Health of

the child is also been found to be negatively impacted by the lowered household income.

Therefore, it has been suggested that interventions aiming to increase health and food

security of children should focus on increasing fruits and vegetables, along with whole

grains in their diets (Tanumihardjo et al., 2007).

Food insecurity has also been shown to impact a child’s mental and cognitive

health (Alaimo, Olson, & Frongillo, 2001a; Alaimo et al., 2002; Casey et al., 2005;

Connell et al., 2005; Kleinman et al., 1998; Murphy et al., 1998). When children’s diet is

negatively impacted by food insecurity causing hunger, they have been found to have

lower physical functioning along with behavioral and psychosocial problems (Alaimo et

al., 2001; Casey et al., 2005; Kleinman et al., 1998; Murphy et al., 1998). Other

consequences on food-insecure children include counseling, school disciplinary

problems, increased suicide risk, and difficulty interacting with others (Alaimo et al.,

2001; Alaimo et al., 2002). The longer a child is exposed to food-insecure conditions, the

more likely their academic performance is to suffer, including arithmetic and grade

completion (Alaimo et al., 2001), which can simply be improved through a healthy diet.

Food insecurity and diet and hunger among children.

Chronic food insecurity and hunger can lead to physical impairment, reduced

learning, and family disturbances (Hamelin et al., 1999). One study conducted in

Massachusetts with homeless and low-income households focused on children’s health

and well-being and the impact of hunger. This study found that half of the preschool

children had been homeless and moved an average of twice in the past year, while their

52 mothers also reported the family as having moderate hunger (Weinreb et al., 2002). The

children who showed more hunger signs were more likely to be white, and those who had

severe hunger were more likely to have low birth weights and more chronic health

problems (Weinreb et al., 2002). A national sample of kindergarteners found that 22.2%

of the children’s households experienced food insecurity, which was also found to be

associated with increased weight gain, poor academic performance, and decline in social

skills (Jyoti et al., 2005). Those with higher incomes had better health, less need for

health care, lower parental depression, and lower levels of food insecurity, while the

opposite was true of poorer households (Ashiabi & O'Neal, 2007).

Even though children are typically protected from hunger, their diets can still be

impacted (Rose, 1999). Children in food-insecure households have lower intakes of

fruits, vegetables, and milk products, which directly impacts their calcium, vitamins A

and C intake (Dixon et al., 2001). Children typically consume the types of food supplies

provided by their caretakers, so when household food supplies are depleted, due to food

insecurity, children’s diets suffer, particularly intake of produce and meat (Matheson et

al., 2002). A sample of households reported 10.4% child food insecurity, 7.8% reduced

diet quality, and 2.6% child hunger (Skalicky et al., 2006). This same study also found

that food-insecure children were twice as likely to have iron-deficient anemia (Skalicky

et al., 2006). It was even found that food insecurity at any level is linked to poor health

outcomes in children, even without hunger or very low food security (Cook et al., 2006).

Not having enough food alone caused poor health in children regardless of

income level (Alaimo et al., 2001). It was also found that family food insecurity was

53 linked to negative academic and psychosocial development in children (Alaimo et al.,

2001a). An in-depth qualitative study asked children in rural Mississippi open-ended

questions to assess their experiences with food insecurity. Some of the children

mentioned being ashamed or fearful of being labeled as “poor” and many coping

strategies were also discussed. Some of these strategies included eating less (quantity and

frequency), eating more or fast when food is available, use of cheap foods, feeling that

there was no choice, and limiting participation in social activities (Connell et al., 2005).

However, SNAP Program participation has been associated with better learning in food-

insecure children (Frongillo, Jyoti, & Jones, 2006). These occurrences typically only

happen when food insecurity is at its worst level, food-insecure with hunger, yet negative

effects on the children of these households appear to occur regardless of food security

categorization.

Federal and Non-Federal Food Assistance Programs

Federal and non-federal food assistance programs have a common objective, to

improve the nutritional status of underprivileged families. Federal programs, such as the

WIC program, SNAP, the School Meals Program, and the Summer Food Service

Program, aim to increase food security and reduce hunger of low-income families

through increased access to healthy nutritious food (Food and Nutrition Service, 2008;

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008; U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c). Non-federal programs, such as Community Food

54 Initiatives (CFI) and community gardens, share the same goals; however, their focus is on

a smaller population within a particular community.

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infant, and Children (WIC)

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infant, and Children,

better known as WIC, is a federal program started in 1974 which provides assistance to

low-income mothers with children under the age of 5 in order to assist with their

nutritional needs (Food and Nutrition Service, 2008). Services provided by WIC include

food vouchers, nutrition education, and health care referrals, which are all overseen by

the Food and Nutrition Service Department in conjunction with the USDA (Food and

Nutrition Service, 2008). In order to receive these benefits, women participants must

meet the income guidelines of 185% poverty level, or $35,798 per year (2008

information; Food and Nutrition Service, 2008). WIC foods include iron-fortified infant

formula and infant cereal, iron-fortified adult cereal, vitamin C-rich fruit or vegetable

juice, eggs, milk, cheese, peanut butter, legumes, tuna, and carrots (Food and Nutrition

Service, 2008). Special therapeutic infant formulas and medical foods may also be

provided if needed (Food and Nutrition Service, 2008). The program provides these

specific foods due to research showing participants are typically lacking in protein,

calcium, iron, and/or vitamins A and C (Food and Nutrition Service, 2008). A recent

revision of the WIC packages determined the need for more produce for all age groups.

In order to accommodate for this change, the packages now include more allowance for

the purchase of fresh fruits and vegetables, along with fruit and vegetable equivalents for

younger ages such as juice and baby foods (Food and Nutrition Service, 2008). WIC has

55 been shown to improve the food security and produce intake of households; especially in

single parent households, through programs such as the WIC farmers’ market nutrition

program as well as participating in research studies that include produce distribution

(Kropf et al., 2007; Walker et al., 2007).

FNS Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is formerly known as

the Food Stamp Program, which began in 1943 as a project created by the Secretary of

Agriculture, Henry Wallace and Milo Perkins (U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, 2009c). After many trials and adjustments to the original program of using

orange and blue stamps to purchase certain commodities, President Johnson proposed to

make the program permanent, which was then confirmed by the Food Stamp Act of 1964

(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009c). Since its beginning, SNAP has

changed to fit the needs of the consumers, including the switch from paper stamp usage

to an updated electronic card system (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

2009c).

SNAP helps low-income families purchase food for their families through the use

of an electronic debit card which provides discounts on items at grocery or convenience

stores (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009c). The program also

provides nutrition education to its participants in order to improve their overall diet,

however not just anyone can qualify for SNAP (U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, 2009c). In order to be eligible for the program, you must meet strict guidelines

56 including income level and acquired resources. Table 5 summarizes the 2009 income

guidelines for SNAP.

Table 5

SNAP 2009 Income and Resource Cut-off Levels

Household Size Gross Monthly Income

(130% poverty)

Net Monthly Income

(100% poverty)

Maximum Monthly Benefits

1 1,127 867 1762 1,517 1,167 3233 1,907 1,467 4634 2,297 1,767 5885 2,687 2,067 6986 3,077 2,367 8387 3,467 2,667 9268 3,857 2,967 1,058Each additional member

+ 390

+ 300

+ 132

Member’s Age Range Resource Amount Allotted

18-60 yrs $2,00060+ yrs or disabled $3,000

Note. Adapted from “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” by USDA Food and Nutrition Services, 2008, United States Department of Agriculture. Copyright 2008 by the USDA. Adapted with permission.

In conjunction with the SNAP assistance, the program also provides an

educational component called SNAP-Ed. SNAP-Ed’s objective is to educate low-income

participants of the SNAP program so that they may make healthier choices and increase

their physical activity (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009c). The

57 SNAP-Ed Connection is an online resource center that provides local programs with

nutritional education, financial tips, recipes, and health information (U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services, 2009c). Children in participating households have been

found to have better academic learning than those low-income non-participants (E. A.

Frongillo et al., 2006).

Food-insecure families who participate in the SNAP program have been found to

have higher mean energy intakes at the end of the month than non-participants, which

means the program is effective in keeping a steady amount of food for the family

throughout the month (Condrasky & Marsh, 2005). However, this cycle nature has also

been shown to increase the weight of female participants as opposed to non-participants

(Jones & Frongillo, 2006).

School Meals Programs

The school lunch program.

The school meals programs are made up of three separate entities: the school

lunch program, the school breakfast program, and the special milk program. The school

lunch program is a nationally funded program which provides nutritionally balanced,

low-cost or free lunches to children in public and non-profit private schools, as well as

residential child care facilities each school day (U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, 2009b). The program was established under the National School Lunch Act,

signed by President Harry Truman in 1946 (U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, 2009b). In 1999, it was found that children who participated in the School

Lunch program had heights related to their income status, which is that those children

58 who were the shortest received free lunch while those who paid for their lunch were taller

(Crooks, 1999). In order for a child to be eligible for this program along with school

breakfast, they must be in a household which makes no more than 185% of the poverty

level (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009b). If they are between the

185% and 130% they are eligible for reduced- meals, and if they are at 130% or below

they qualify for free- meals (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009b).

Table 6 shows income guidelines for all school meal programs.

Table 6

School Meal Income Qualifications

Program Income Guidelines Qualified Category

School Lunch > 185% Full Price Lunch 185%- 130% Reduced Price Lunch < 130% Free Lunch

School Breakfast > 185% Full Price Breakfast 185%- 130% Reduced Price Breakfast < 130% Free Breakfast

Special Milk Program N/A Free Milk

Note. Adapted from “School Meals,” by USDA Food and Nutrition Service, 2008, United States Department of Agriculture. Copyright 2008 by the USDA. Adapted with permission.

School lunches must meet the applicable recommendations of the 1995 Dietary

Guidelines for Americans, which recommend that no more than 30 percent of an

individual's calories come from fat, and less than 10 percent from saturated fat (U.S.

59 Department of Health and Human Services, 2009b). Regulations also establish a standard

for school lunches to provide one-third of the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA)

of protein, vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, calcium, and calories (U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services, 2009b).

A new program now being offered in conjunction with the school lunch program

is the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, which started in 2002, and is now in select

schools nationwide (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009b). This

requires the participating school to provide fresh fruits and vegetables to students for free

throughout the day (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009b). There are

many stipulations that go along with this program, including: program may not be offered

at the same time as lunch and breakfast; only fresh fruits and vegetables may be used, not

canned or jarred; and no dips may be served with the fruits, only serving size pouches

with vegetables (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009b). Since the

program is fairly new, no evaluation on the overall success is scheduled until 2011; (U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, 2009b) however, the program does focus on

lower-income schools which could lead to a change in the food security of participants.

The school breakfast program. The school breakfast program is very similar to

the lunch program in that it has the same eligibility requirements and is provided by the

same agency for the same locations (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

2009b). This program, however, did not start until 1966, when it was introduced as a

pilot study. It was made permanent in 1975 (U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, 2009b). The nutritional requirements are also the same for the breakfast

60 program as they are the lunch. Both must meet one-third RDA for protein, vitamin A,

vitamin C, iron, calcium, and calories (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

2009b). An intervention done with nutrition education and the School Breakfast Program

found an increase in healthy eating habits and reduced weight gain with high school

participants (Ask, Hernes, Aarek, Johannessen, & Haugen, 2006).

The special milk program.

The special milk program is unique to the school meal program, since it is offered

at facilities that do not necessarily participate in the other two programs (U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, 2009b). However, those facilities that

participate in the school lunch and breakfast programs may also receive the special milk

program, as long as they also have half-a-day kindergarten programs, since those children

are not eligible for the lunch and breakfast programs (U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, 2009b). Another unique feature of this program is that there are no

income guidelines in order for a child to receive the benefits. The school is reimbursed

for every half pint of milk that they sell, as long as they agree to reduce the overall cost of

the milk to children (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009b).

Summer Food Service Program

The Summer Food Service Program is a program that fills the summer gap for

those children who do not have consistent access to meals on a daily basis. Through the

USDA, summer camps or other similar programs can receive the same benefit schools do

through the School Lunch and Breakfast programs (U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, 2008). The program started in 1968 as a pilot study, which was put in

61 place permanently in 1975 for low-income families participating in community summer

programming (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008).

Community Garden-Based Programs

The America Community Gardening Association.

The American Community Gardening Association (ACGA) is a bi-national

nonprofit membership organization of professionals, volunteers and supporters of

community greening in urban and rural communities (Agriculture and Natural Resources,

University of California, 2009). This association is based out of Columbus, Ohio, and

focuses on increasing the community’s access to produce, nutrition knowledge, and

improving their diet through the development of a community garden (Agriculture and

Natural Resources, University of California, 2009). The ACGA started in 1979 and has

since been associated with over 400 gardening programs in the state (Agriculture and

Natural Resources, University of California, 2009).

Farm-to-School.

The Farm-to-School series, which started in 2000, is a national organization that

has state-based programs which connect schools to local farms in order to increase

nutrition education, healthy eating, and local farm support (Agriculture and Natural

Resources, University of California, 2009). The National Farm to School Network began

with the goal of supporting community-based food systems, strengthening family farms,

and improving student health by reducing childhood obesity (Agriculture and Natural

Resources, University of California, 2009). The program includes produce based

practices such as farm fresh salad bars and local foods in the cafeteria, waste

62 management programs like composting, and experiential education opportunities such as

planting school gardens, cooking demonstrations and farm tours (Agriculture and Natural

Resources, University of California, 2009). The goals of these approaches are to help

children understand where their food comes from and how their food choices impact their

bodies, the environment and their communities at large (Agriculture and Natural

Resources, University of California, 2009). In Ohio there are three existing programs,

two of which are based in schools located in urban areas (Agriculture and Natural

Resources, University of California, 2009). Due to the nationwide interest in the

organization, more Ohio agencies are starting their own farm-to-school based programs,

which should increase in the future.

School gardening.

School gardens have been around since the 19th century as a way to educate,

increase physical activity, and feed students (Agriculture and Natural Resources,

University of California, 2009). School gardens are still included in curricula in order to

maintain physical activity of students and introduce a new way to learn the required

subjects math, science, and English. Many studies have used school gardens to improve

produce intake and nutrition education with mostly positive results in both physical and

academic areas (Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005; Hermann et al., 2006; McAleese &

Rankin, 2007; Morris & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2002; Robinson-O'Brien et al., 2009). In 2005,

the Community Food Initiatives partnered with a local Athens County School District to

plant a school garden of pumpkin, sunflowers, squash, corn, tomatoes, potatoes, and

63 herbs which included over 300 students, faculty, and parents (Ohio Action for Healthy

Kids).

Community Food Initiatives.

The Community Food Initiatives (CFI) is a non-profit organization that started in

1992 as a part of the Appalachian Center for Economic Networks, ACE-net, in Athens,

Ohio (Zerbian, 2007). This program plays a role in providing food to low-income

families in the Athens area. Some of CFI’s projects include school gardens, gardening

and produce education seminars, composting projects, community gardens, and produce

donation (Zerbian, 2007). The programs that most directly impact the low-income

community are the school gardens, which provide education and produce to the children;

community gardens, which allow anyone the opportunity to plant and tend to their own

garden and reap the benefits, also require a produce donation, which is a program that

donates the excess produce from the community gardens to local individuals, shelters,

and community programs in need (Zerbian, 2007). This program, along with the others,

provides inexpensive opportunities to provide nutritious food to those who cannot always

afford it on their own.

Appalachia

Appalachia is a 205,000-square-mile region that follows the Appalachian

Mountains from southern New York to northern Mississippi. It includes all of West

Virginia and parts of 12 other states: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland,

M

an

FNCp

o

Mississippi, N

nd Virginia.

Figure 5. TheNote. From “TCommission.

ermission of

About

f the populat

New York, N

Figure 5 is

e AppalachiaThe Appalac Copyright 2f the author.

t 23.6 millio

tion being ru

North Caroli

a map of the

an Region. chian Region2008 by the

on people liv

ural, compar

na, Ohio, Pe

e region.

n,” by D. SmAppalachian

ve in the 420

red with 20 p

ennsylvania,

mith, 2008, An Regional C

counties of

percent of th

South Caro

Appalachian Commission

Appalachia

he rest of the

lina, Tennes

Regional . Reprinted w

with 42 perc

e nation (Smi

64

ssee,

with

cent

ith &

65 Grant, 2008). Most of the area’s economy is based upon natural resources, such as coal,

and other manufacturing businesses (Smith & Grant, 2008). Appalachia has been the

focus of many studies, as it is known for low education, high unemployment, high

poverty, and lower access to health care (Smith & Grant, 2008). Athens County, Ohio, is

in the northern region of Appalachia and is situated in the Southeast region of

Appalachian Ohio (see Figure 6; Smith & Grant, 2008). Table 7 compares the study area

(Athens County, Ohio) to Appalachian Ohio, Ohio, the Appalachian region, and the

entire United States for several characteristics.

66 Table 7

Region Economic and Educational Level Comparison

Athens Co., OH

Appalachian OH

Ohio Appalachian Region

United States

Population, 2000 62,223 1,455,313 11,353,140 22,894,017 281,421,906

Income, 2002 $19,885 $23,057 $29,195 $25,470 $30,906

Income % of U.S., 2002

64.3% 74.6% 94.5% 82.4% 100.0%

Unemployment Rate, 2003

4.8% 7.1% 6.1% 5.8% 6.0%

People Below Poverty Level, 2000

14,728 191,502 1,170,698 3,030,896 33,899,812

Poverty Rate, 2000 27.4% 13.6% 10.6% 13.6% 12.4%

High School Graduate Percentage

82.9% 78.2% 83% 76.8% 80.4%

Adults with College Degree, Percentage

25.7% 12.3% 21.1% 17.7% 24.4%

Economic Status, 2009

Distressed - - - -

Note. Adapted from “The Appalachian Region,” by D. Smith, 2008, Appalachian Regional Commission. http://www.arc.gov. Copyright 2008 by the Appalachian Regional Commission. Adapted with permission of the author.

In 2008, Athens County, Ohio, was considered distressed according to the

Appalachian Regional Commission (Smith & Grant, 2008), which means it is one of the

poorest in the area based upon income and poverty levels. It is classified as in persistent

p

b

th

FNGR

m

overty by th

ased on an a

he fiscal year

Figure 6. AppNote. From “2Government. Reprinted wit

Accor

medically und

he USDA (Ec

average of th

r (Smith & G

palachian Oh2007 Countyhttp://www

th permissio

rding to the O

derserved ar

conomic Res

he county’s u

Grant, 2008)

hio Countiesy Profiles,” b.ohio.gov. C

on.

Ohio Depart

rea with a sh

search Servi

unemployme

).

s. by Ohio Job

Copyright 20

tment of Hea

hortage of pri

ice, 2008). T

ent, poverty

b and Family009 by Ohio

alth, Athens

imary care, d

These classifi

level, and in

y Services, 20Job and Fam

County is a

dental, and m

fications are

ncome rate fo

009, Ohio mily Services

partially

mental health

67

all

for

s.

h

68 care providers (Ohio Department of Health, 2009). There are two hospitals in the county

employing 124 physicians for the 62,223 residents. However, only 52.9% of those

residents have health insurance (Ohio University's Voinovich School for Leadership and

Public Affairs, 2008; Smith & Grant, 2008).

Athens County is 93.4% Caucasian ethnicity (Smith & Grant, 2008; U.S. Census

Bureau, 2009). The median age is 25.7 years, and 34% have only 12 years of education

(Smith & Grant, 2008; U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). Regarding unemployment and

financial resources, 8.4% families have both parents in work force, and 37.3% live below

150% poverty level (Smith & Grant, 2008; U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). The top five

employers in Athens County are area high schools, Ohio University, the Athens city

government, Hocking College, and the Athens’s Wal-Mart (Ohio University's Voinovich

School for Leadership and Public Affairs, 2008).

Health

Health is a large concern in Appalachia due to the level of poverty and overall

rural landscape (Behringer & Friedell, 2006). Diabetes, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary

Disease (COPD), infant, stroke, accident, motor vehicle, suicide, heart disease, and

cancer death rates and hospitalizations are all high in the Appalachian region

(Appalachian Regional Commission, 2008). As mentioned previously, Athens County,

which is located in Appalachia, is known as a partially medically underserved area,

which can involve limited access to and availability of health care related resources (Ohio

Department of Health, 2009). Concerns with rural areas in relation to health care include

the increased distance to facilities, increased poverty in relation to ability to pay, and

69 education level in relation to understanding conditions and associated treatments (Quandt

et al., 2005). In fact, education can play a role in residents’ health and diet knowledge and

experiences (Behringer & Friedell, 2006). A large Appalachian study, which included

data collected from Athens, Ohio, found that subjects typically based their health

knowledge on events that occurred to other family members, including their

understanding of personal disease and risk prevention (Denham et al., 2004). The

information also typically came from the elder members of the family, and most of the

family’s focus was put on the children’s health before others (Denham et al., 2004).

Obesity, cancer, chronic disease, and mental health are all concerns in the Appalachian

region and are discussed in more detail below.

Obesity.

Appalachian counties overall have been found to have a higher obesity

prevalence, with the exception of African-American men (Appalachian Regional

Commission, 2008). Obesity rates have been found to be greater in food-insecure

households as compared to their counterparts in Appalachian Ohio ( Holben & Pheley,

2006; Holben & Pheley, 2006; Pheley et al., 2002). One study done with older adults in

rural North Carolina found that 80% of their participants were overweight or obese

(Quandt et al., 2005). It has also been suggested that rural residents are at a disadvantage

when it comes to eating healthy, which cannot only impact their overall health, but also

their risk for chronic disease such as obesity and cancer. One study found only a quarter

of the grocery stores in rural areas supported healthy eating guidelines by providing

70 recommended foods while most offered only cheaper convenience foods (Liese, Weis,

Pluto, Smith, & Lawson, 2007).

Appalachian children have been found to have a higher overweight prevalence

than the rest of the nation (Demerath et al., 2003). A study done in Athens, Ohio, found

46.2% of children were classified according to BMI criteria as overweight or obese

(Tulkki et al., 2006). Half of the children found to be overweight while another 45% had

body fat levels ranging from moderately high to very high (Tulkki et al., 2006). However,

these trends were not related to food insecurity (Meek, 2005). A study in Appalachian

Pennsylvania found 36% of child participants were overweight or at risk for overweight,

and another 23% were overweight while researchers in Kentucky found 33% of the

children were above the 85th percentile for BMI (Crooks, 1999; Rappaport & Robbins,

2005). A study done in West Virginia in 2003 had similar findings, with 45% of their

children subjects being either overweight or at risk for overweight (Demerath et al.,

2003). This disturbing trend in children suggests that if not dealt with, this could lead to a

larger increase in adult obesity in Appalachia in the future.

Cancer and chronic disease.

Appalachia has been found to have increased rates of premature mortality than the

rest of the nation. Heart disease, all-site cancers, lung cancer, and chronic obstructive

pulmonary disease (COPD) are the primary health problems contributing to this

phenomenon (Appalachian Regional Commission, 2008). Central and Southwestern

Appalachia were found to be comparably disadvantaged in relation to socioeconomic

status, while also having higher incidence of premature mortality (Appalachian Regional

71 Commission, 2008). Overall, regions in Appalachia with the lowest rates of health

insurance and the highest rates of poverty are the areas with the highest rates of

premature mortality (Appalachian Regional Commission, 2008). In relation to heart

disease and cancer death rates, Appalachia has higher rates than the rest of the nation,

especially the Southeastern Ohio region (Appalachian Regional Commission, 2008). The

literature has suggested that due to Appalachia’s limited access to health care and high

poverty levels, future interventions should address these issues while focusing on ways to

reduce these cancer rates (Wewers et al., 2006).

For diabetes mellitus, it was found that older adults living with diabetes in rural

areas of Appalachia had achieved less gylcemic control than those living in urban areas,

due to the distance between their homes and health care facilities, related to the region’s

lack of access to health care (Quandt et al., 2005). This could lead to many complications

from their diabetic condition, including neuropathy, retinopathy, nephropathy, and

neurological complications. These complications can lead to increased health costs

related to the complications, which these rural citizens may not be able to care for.

As mentioned previously, food insecurity has been associated with increased with

increased risk for chronic disease, while obesity also has a strong correlation. It has been

found that those who have healthy, balanced diets had a lower risk of major chronic

disease, with the strongest reduction in cardiovascular disease (McCullough et al., 2002).

However, these findings relate to mostly well-educated, middle class participants, who

may not be representative of the Appalachian population. It was found that women with

higher nutrition knowledge and healthy eating behaviors had lower risk of type 2 diabetes

72 in a long-term research study, which suggests those who eat the recommended amounts

of produce and have a healthy weight have less risk for chronic disease (Fung,

McCullough, van Dam, & Hu, 2007). These studies suggest that with nutrition education,

and increased access to healthy foods, the Appalachian population’s risk for chronic

disease may decrease.

Mental health.

Appalachia has been found to have higher rates of mental illness, regardless of

substance abuse, than the rest of the nation (Zhang, Infante, Meit, & English, 2008).

Central Appalachia especially saw increases in mental health incidence 2008, which

includes Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, and Tennessee (Zhang et al., 2008). Even

with this increase in mental health treatment need, there is still a lack of inpatient

treatment centers (Zhang et al., 2008). This lack of treatment can be associated with food-

insecurity as well, since it has also been found to be related to mental illness and

depression (Alaimo et al., 2002; Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2007; Casey et al., 2004; Olson,

2005; Siefert, Heflin, Corcoran, & Williams, 2001).

Food Security

In relation to poverty and food access, food insecurity has been found to be a

concern to Appalachian residents (Holben et al., 2006; Holben et al., 2004; Holben &

Pheley, 2006; Hutson et al., 2007; Kendall et al., 1996; Kropf et al., 2007; Pheley et al.,

2002; Tessaro et al., 2006; Walker et al., 2007; Wewers et al., 2006). In fact, in the

proposed study region of Appalachian Ohio, food insecurity was found to be three times

the level of the rest of the state, as well as almost double the rate of the nation (Holben et

73 al., 2004; Holben & Pheley, 2006; Kropf et al., 2007; Meek, 2005; Pheley et al., 2002;

Walker et al., 2007). The entire state of Ohio from 2005 to 2007 had an average of 12.2%

of households categorized as food-insecure, with 4.5% of all households being classified

as very low food security (Nord et al., 2008). This can lead to many problems throughout

the household, including adverse effects on the children’s health (Bronte-Tinkew et al.,

2007; Casey et al., 2004; Casey et al., 2005; Casey et al., 2006; Connell et al., 2005;

Cook et al., 2006; Kaiser & Townsend, 2005). As has been discussed in the previous food

security section, food security has been associated with obesity, depression, increased

risk for chronic disease, stunted growth, and poor diet quality (Bhattacharya et al., 2004;

Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2007; Cook et al., 2004; Cook et al., 2008; Hamelin et al., 1999;

Holben et al., 2006; Holben & Pheley, 2006; Lyons et al., 2008; Rose & Bodor, 2006;

Seligman et al., 2007; Tanumihardjo et al., 2007; Townsend et al., 2001; Vozoris &

Tarasuk, 2003; Walker et al., 2007; Weinreb et al., 2002). In addition, food insecurity is

related to low-income and low-educated households, which is prevalent in the

Appalachian region (Smith & Grant, 2008). This underscores the need to address this

problem in the region.

Produce Intake in the United States

Produce intake has been linked to decreased risk of chronic diseases incidence,

including cardiovascular disease, some types of cancers, and obesity (Dalton, 2006; Holt

et al., 2009; Van Duyn & Pivonka, 2000). Produce intake has been shown to decline

significantly as food insecurity worsens in women and children (Kendall et al., 1996).

74 Childhood obesity has an even greater impact on health than adult obesity, since children

are still developing when the consequences can occur. Nearly one million adolescents

were diagnosed with metabolic syndrome, posing an increased risk for chronic disease

(Pan & Pratt, 2008). However, that same study reported that better diet quality, including

increased produce intake and increased physical activity alleviated the risk for metabolic

syndrome (Pan & Pratt, 2008).

Children in food-insecure households have been found to have lower intakes of

dark green vegetables and fruits than those in food-secure households ( Casey et al.,

2001; Lorson et al., 2009). In a sample with 10.9% of participants from food-insecure

households, participants’ mean intake of fruits and vegetables was 1 cup per day, much

less than the recommended amounts of five servings per day for most people (Lorson et

al., 2009). A study focusing on fruit and vegetable intake of rural mothers and children

found that most produce intake was inadequate, but those who ate from all five colors of

produce (red, orange/yellow, green, white, and purple/blue) consumed 1 ½ more servings

than those who did not (Nanney, Schermbeck, & Haire-Joshu, 2007) . The study

participants were very similar in demographics to those in the Athens County, Ohio, area,

which may indicate that an intervention focusing on fruits and vegetables of young

families with children in a school-like setting could be beneficial. More than half of the

adolescents in a Canadian study did not meet the 5-a-day fruit and vegetable

recommendations; however, intake did increase with increased family income, education,

and two parent households (Riediger et al., 2007).

75

Decreased fruit and vegetable preference in children was found to lead to an

increased risk for overweight or obesity, which may indicate that produce intake is

essential for a healthy body weight (Lakkakula et al., 2008). A study that focused on diet

adequacy found that most participants did not have much variety in a one day recall of

their dietary intake, but of those who did, they were more likely to meet nutrient

adequacy as suggested by the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs; Foote, Murphy, Wilkens,

Basiotis, & Carlson, 2004). This suggests that with higher produce intake, an adequate

nutrient intake is more likely, which may lead to better health. A study conducted in rural

North Carolina found children who consumed excessive amounts of sweets did not meet

the recommendations for fruits, vegetables, dairy, or grains (Ball et al., 2008).

Produce, gardening, and nutrition education interventions with children may

improve their overall diet quality and health by improving their physical activity levels

and produce intake. Fruit and vegetable availability is particularly important for children

not only to sustain adequate nutrition but to instill sound dietary practices early on. There

has been some evidence to indicate that gardening programs could positively impact a

child’s produce intake along with nutrition education (Hermann et al., 2006; Nanney,

Johnson et al., 2007; Stables et al., 2005), which will be discussed further in the next

section.

Produce and Gardening Interventions

Children in low income families have low calcium, iron, vitamins A and C, and

folate levels, along with increased body weight and health concerns (Ball et al., 2008;

76 Casey et al., 2006; Dixon et al., 2001; Gao et al., 2006; Langevin et al., 2007; Rose &

Oliveira, 1997; Skalicky et al., 2006). Therefore, it has been suggested that interventions

should focus on increasing their produce and nutrient intake in school or similar settings

(Langevin et al., 2007). Most studies using gardening and nutrition education forums

have found a positive change in produce intake (Hermann et al., 2006; Robinson-O'Brien

et al., 2009). The school setting does not have to be the only location for such

interventions. Other programs have been done at community locations, summer or day

camps, and after-school programs.

Multiple intervention avenues have also been tried with gardening and nutrition

programs, of variable lengths, foci, and populations, with mostly positive results (Graham

& Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005; Hermann et al., 2006; McAleese & Rankin, 2007; Nanney,

Johnson et al., 2007; Robinson-O'Brien et al., 2009). An intervention focusing on a “5-a-

day” fruit and vegetable intervention in low-income population used Project FRESH

vouchers for use at the farmers market with WIC participants, along with education

sessions for some groups (Anderson et al., 2001). The study did not significantly improve

produce, which may be due to the original groups beginning with a high produce intake

(Anderson et al., 2001). However, a similar project done with South Carolina Senior

Farmers’ Market Nutrition Education Program participants found that increasing

availability of produce and education of subjects resulted in an increased intake of

produce (Kunkel, Luccia, & Moore, 2003). A study in 2005 had one-hour interventions

for several weeks with seven to nine year old children in a school-based program focused

on specific fruit and vegetables that could be increased in the diet (Nanney, Haire-Joshu,

77 Elliott, Hessler, & Brownson, 2005). Another type of six-week program focused on fruit

and vegetable intake in Boston, but they provided information through an internet

intervention. Even though most of the study focused on the development and use of the

website, it was found that those who had higher fruit and vegetable intakes used the

website more, suggesting that they had a higher interest in healthy eating (McNeill,

Viswanath, Bennett, Puleo, & Emmons, 2007). This may indicate that regardless of the

intervention method, those who are already interested in healthy practices may be more

compliant with an intervention than others. Behavior change is the central goal in such

interventions, and therefore those who focus on the behavior change theory and stages of

change seem to have more success.

A very similar, but more extensive, gardening program was implemented in

California. Three different schools were provided with nine nutrition lessons focused on

plant structure, nutrients, Food Guide Pyramid, serving sizes, reading food labels,

increasing physical activity, goal setting, consumerism, and snack preparation. The

program positively impacted both children’s nutrition knowledge and vegetable

preferences (Morris & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2002). An additional survey done in California

obtained the teachers opinions about the effectiveness of the school gardening and

nutrition education programs. Researchers found that the teachers were using the garden

for teaching nutrition, science, language arts, and math, but they indicated more resources

to link the gardening to their curriculum were needed (Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr,

2005). Another school gardening and nutrition education program was created for three

schools in Idaho, with the inclusion of a control school. The groups were divided into

78 solely nutrition education, nutrition education plus gardening, and a control group which

received no treatment (McAleese & Rankin, 2007). Researchers found that the gardening

plus nutrition education group significantly improved their produce and nutrient intake,

more specifically vitamins A and C, and fiber (McAleese & Rankin, 2007).

In Canada, researchers created a school-based program to enhance the knowledge

and psychosocial factors related to healthy eating and its impact on the dietary fiber and

fat intake of the children. They used a pre-test/post-test with elementary school children.

The program was significantly associated with increased knowledge, dietary self-

efficacy, and improved overall diet (Saksvig et al., 2005).

A study done in 2005 focused on the Dietary Intervention Study in Children,

consisting of a randomized controlled trial originally designed to test a three-year

intervention intended to lower blood cholesterol by focusing on reducing fat, cholesterol,

while increasing fiber, fruits, and vegetables (Van Horn, Obarzanek, Friedman,

Gernhofer, & Barton, 2005). Their message was based on a whoa/go foods system. Foods

were chosen through their fat content with “go” foods being lower fat, including fruits

and vegetables, and “whoa” foods having more fat (Van Horn et al., 2005). They

encouraged “go” foods in each food group while suggesting less, but not none, of the

“whoa” foods (Van Horn et al., 2005). It was found that the children had positive results

to the intervention, and therefore the study was extended (Van Horn et al., 2005). Use of

electronic communication in interventions was found to be associated with increased fruit

and vegetable intake; however, the study focused on the self efficacy of the participants

primarily (Luszczynska et al., 2007). Interventions typically work better when

79 customized to the specific population. One study developed an interactive multimedia

intervention for participants to decrease their fat consumption with positive results

(Irvine, Ary, Grove, & Gilfillan-Morton, 2004). Since this intervention was specifically

designed for this population, it may have gotten better results than if it had been a generic

program developed for wide spread use.

Overall, it seems that interventions that include gardening along with nutrition

education have a more successful impact on produce preference and intake than those

that only focus on nutrition education. Length of the intervention also seems to play a

role with more time spent equaling greater results.

Parental reporting of children’s dietary intake has been utilized in research

projects. Therefore, researchers have asked how accurate these parents are when recalling

their child’s fruit and vegetable intake. Overall it was found that parents accurately

reported their child’s intake, with only some discrepancy on juices and combination

foods that included fruits and vegetables (Linneman et al., 2004). Thus, it should be safe

to include questions about their child’s perceptions and intake if necessary on our

surveys. However, another similar study done in the Netherlands found poor correlation

between parent and child responses to the child’s vegetable intake, but better correlation

with their fruit intake (Reinaerts, de Nooijer, & de Vries, 2007).

Conclusion

The literature shows that food insecurity is a serious health-related problem

affecting both adults and children, while also associated with decreased produce intake. It

80 has been suggested that interventions done by nutrition professionals should incorporate

produce options that relate to the culture, region, and status of that area (Nanney, Haire-

Joshu, Hessler, & Brownson, 2004). Even though many studies have attempted to target

interventions toward the younger population to combat this problem through use of fruit

and vegetable and gardening programs, none have done so in Appalachian Ohio.

Therefore, this study: (a) measured the effect of a nutrition and gardening education

program on Appalachian children’s fruit and vegetable intakes and preferences; and (b)

examined the relationship of food security status to gardening habits and perceptions,

produce intake, and personal characteristics of children and their adult female caregivers.

81

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

Produce intake in the United States typically does not meet the recommended

levels, especially in women and children (Anderson et al., 2001; Ball et al., 2008;

Cassady et al., 2007; Foote et al., 2004; Fu et al., 2007; Fung et al., 2007; Guenther et al.,

2006; Hazen et al., 2008; Holben & Pheley, 2006; Kropf et al., 2007; Lorson et al., 2009;

McCullough et al., 2002; Nanney et al., 2005; Olson, 1999; Pierce, Stefanick et al., 2007;

Potischman et al., 1998; Struble et al., 2008; Tarasuk & Beaton, 1999; Walker et al.,

2007). Fruit and vegetable intake has been found to be inversely related to household

food security (Bhattacharya et al., 2004; Dixon et al., 2001; Kendall et al., 1996; Kropf et

al., 2007). For adult females and children living in food-insecure households, fruits and



Kendall et al., 1996; Kropf et al., 2007). Through the practice of gardening, a family may

be able to grow fruits and vegetables at a lower cost than purchasing them, while

increasing both physical activity and produce intake. This study: (a) measured the effect

of a nutrition and gardening education program on Appalachian children’s fruit and

vegetable intakes and preferences; and (b) examined the relationship of food security

status to gardening habits and perceptions, produce intake, and personal characteristics of

children and their adult female caregivers.

82

Subjects

The Institutional Review Board at Ohio University approved of this quasi-

experimental research study prior to the collection of any data (Appendix C). Potential

child participants were children enrolled in Kids on Campus in the 1st through 4th grade

programs. Potential caregiver participants were adult females 18 years and older living in

Athens County, Ohio, with children enrolled in a university-based summer day camp,

Kids on Campus, in 1st through 6th grade programs. Kids on Campus is a six-week,

College of Health and Human Services program which serves households in Athens

County, Ohio, through summer educational and recreational activities. Even though child

participants were only in grades 1st through 4th for Kids on Campus scheduling reasons,

female caregiver participants were those with any child participating in Kids on Campus

(grades 1st through 6th). Male caregivers were ineligible, since the focus of this study was

on characteristics of female caregivers. Participants were recruited using convenience

sampling through the summer day camp.

Setting

This study took place in Athens County, Ohio, which is classified as a distressed

county in Appalachia by the Appalachian Regional Commission based upon income and

poverty levels (Smith & Grant, 2008), and as having persistent poverty by the United

States Department of Agriculture (USDA; Economic Research Service, 2008). According

to the Ohio Department of Health, Athens County is a partially medically underserved

area with a shortage of primary care, dental, and mental health care providers (Ohio

83 Department of Health, 2009). There are two hospitals in the county employing 124

physicians for the 62,223 residents. However, only 52.9% of those residents have health

insurance (Ohio University's Voinovich School for Leadership and Public Affairs, 2008;

Smith & Grant, 2008).

Project Description

Adult female participants were surveyed only at the onset of the study,

approximately one month prior to the start of the summer camp. Informed consent was

included on the first page of the survey (see Appendix D), with consent of the participant

being assumed with the return of the survey. A 79-item survey (see Appendix D) was

distributed in May 2008 through Kids on Campus with other programmatic recruitment

materials to assess the food security, health, and produce intakes and behaviors, as well

as their perception of the produce intakes and gardening behaviors of their children.

Surveys included previously validated items [SF-12 health questionnaire (Ware &

Sherbourne, 1992), Psychosocial Indicators of Fruit and Vegetable Intake in Low Income

Communities questionnaire and Food Behavior Checklist for a Limited Resource

Audience (Townsend & Kaiser, 2005; Townsend & Kaiser, 2007), U.S. household 6-item

food security survey module (Bickel et al., 2000)]. There were also questions related to

participant characteristics, including gender, age, and self-identified weight, height, and

diabetes mellitus status, as well as perception of self and family gardening habits and

produce. Only the food security, female fruit and vegetable intake, gardening, and

demographic data were used for this thesis.

84 Children were surveyed prior to and after the nutrition and gardening education

intervention. On the first day of the gardening program, each child participant completed

both an 18-item fruit and an 18-item vegetable preference and intake checklist (see

Appendix F). The questionnaires, adapted from the Saint Louis University School of

Public Health’s SLU 4 Kids FFQ, itemized the produce names and included an image of

each. Children circled foods that were liked and noted foods eaten in the past week by

checking a corresponding box. This instrument was developed for this study and has not

been previously validated, but was based on the previously validated Saint Louis

University 4 Kids Food Frequency Questionnaire (SLU 4 Kids FFQ; Haire-Joshu et al.,

2003).

After completing the initial surveys, the first nutrition education and gardening

program was delivered. Five additional weekly lessons were delivered over the six-week

program. Overall, the nutrition education and gardening program included information

on gardening, plant growth and maintenance, composting, vitamins, minerals, fiber, and

MyPyramid.gov. The next section details the entire program.

The children were provided with educational materials, gardening information,

and locally-grown produce with corresponding recipes to take home to the adult female

caregiver participants weekly. All educational materials sent home included information

from the weekly lesson, as well as gardening tips and ways to increase produce intake at

home with different recipes. During week six, at the conclusion of the program, each

child completed the produce checklist to assess for changes in preferences and intake of

produce.

85

The Nutrition Education and Gardening Program

Overall, the nutrition education and gardening program included information on

gardening, plant growth and maintenance, composting, and basic nutrition concepts.

Based upon a needs assessment of US children, weekly lessons were developed and

focused on food groups and nutrients shown to be lacking (Ashiabi & O'Neal, 2007; Ball

et al., 2008; Casey et al., 2001; Gao et al., 2006; Lorson et al., 2009; Nanney et al., 2005;

Skalicky et al., 2006; Trevino et al., 2008). The program included six, one-hour lessons:

1. Week 1: Gardening is Great! Gardening basics.

2. Week 2: Gardening is Colorful! Mypyramid basics.

3. Week 3: Fruit + Vegetables = Fiber. Fiber content in produce and its benefits.

4. Week 4: Teamwork. Functions and food sources of vitamin C and iron.

5. Week 5: Dynamic Duo. Functions and food sources of vitamin A and calcium.

6. Week 6: Scraps to Soil! Composting basics.

Weekly lessons were developed for the 1st through 4th grade levels through a combination

of EarthBox®-suggested activities and original activities. The lessons were delivered

weekly to groups of campers (six groups of 25), according to grade level (3 groups 1st-2nd

graders, 3 groups 3rd-4th graders). The lesson plans are in Appendix E.

Data Scoring and Statistical Analysis

All data was tabulated and analyzed using the Statistical Program for the Social

Sciences (SPSS) version 16.0. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically

significant. Female caregiver’s weight was assed using body mass index (BMI)

categories through self-reported heights and weights (kg/m2) and then categorized using

86 the Center for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines. Household Food Security Status was

scored according to the standardized methods for the six-item survey scoring (Bickel et

al. 2000), while produce readiness of the female caregiver’s were scored using the

methods of Townsend and Kaiser ( Townsend & Kaiser, 2005; Townsend & Kaiser,

2007). Gardening readiness was measured using two items modeled after the methods of

Townsend and Kaiser ( Townsend & Kaiser, 2005; Townsend & Kaiser, 2007). Scoring

for these instruments is summarized in Appendix A. Table 8 summarizes the statistical

analyses completed by research question.

87 Table 8

Research Questions and Associated Statistical Test

Research Questions Statistical Test

1. Does a six-week nutrition and gardening education program improve children’s preference for and intake of fruits and vegetables?

T-test

2. At the onset of the study, is household food security status related to the female caregiver’s perception of the gardening habits of the children?

Kendall tau-b Correlation

3. At the onset of the study, is household food security status related to the female caregiver’s gardening readiness?


4. At the onset of the study, is household food security status related to produce intake of female caregiver?


5. At the onset of the study, are the female caregiver’s gardening habits related to their perceptions of the child’s gardening habits?


6. At the onset of the study, is household food security status related to produce preferences and intakes of child participants?


7. At the onset of the study, are the child’s produce intake and preferences related to their female caregiver’s produce intakes?


8. At the onset of the study, are the child’s produce intake and preferences related to their female caregiver’s gardening habits?


9. Do body mass index (BMI), vegetable intake, and fruit intake differ between female caregivers from food-secure versus food-insecure households?

Mann-Whitney U

10. Do marital status, education level, transportation, hunting, fishing, food assistance program participation, perceived health level, diet quality, body mass index category, and produce and

Pearson Chi Square

88

gardening readiness differ between female caregivers from food-secure versus food-insecure households?

89

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

Fruit and vegetable intake has been found to be related to household food security

status (Bhattacharya et al., 2004; Dixon et al., 2001; Kendall et al., 1996; Kropf et al.,

2007). For adult females and children living in food-insecure households, fruits and



Kendall et al., 1996; Kropf et al., 2007). Through the practice of gardening, however, a

family may be able to grow fruits and vegetables at a lower cost than purchasing them,

while increasing both physical activity and produce intake. This study: (a) measured the

effect of a nutrition and gardening education program on Appalachian children’s fruit and

vegetable intakes and preferences; and (b) examined the relationship of food security

status to gardening habits and perceptions, produce intake, and personal characteristics of

children and their adult female caregivers.

Child Participant Data

Of the 150 children in grades 1st through 4th participating in Kids on Campus

during the summer of 2008, 91 completed both pre- and post-intervention surveys (60.7%

completion rate). Of the 91 participants who completed both surveys, 49 (54.0%) were

entering grades 1st or 2nd grade, while 42 (46.0%) were entering 3rd or 4th grade.

According to Kids on Campus records, child participants ranged in age from 5 to 9 years

and were entering grades 1 through 4. Participating households had a median income of

$22,000 per year. The child participants were Caucasian (93%), African American (2%),

90 Asian, (2%), Hispanic (2%), and American Indian (1%). (Note: Due to Kids on Campus

regulations, we were not able to obtain individual demographic information on the

children.)

Table 9 and Figure 7 describe the child participants’ variety of produce eaten

and preferred. “Preferred” fruits and vegetables were those that the child liked

(preference variety), while “eaten” fruits and vegetables were those items consumed in

the past week (intake variety).

91 Table 9

Child Participants’ Produce Preferences and Intakes

Pre-Intervention Preferences & Intakes (n = 91)

Post-Intervention Preferences & Intakes (n = 91)

p-value

Mean ± Standard Deviation

Mean ± Standard Deviation

Variety of Fruit Preferred (Number of Fruits Preferred)

6.9 ± 6.6 7.3 ± 6.9 .554

Fruit Intake Variety (Number of Different Fruits Eaten in the Past Week)

9.6 ± 6.1 9.1 ± 6.9 .563

Variety of Vegetables Preferred (Number of Vegetables Preferred)

6.2 ± 5.5 5.6 ± 5.9 .341

Vegetable Intake Variety (Number of Different Vegetables Eaten in the Past Week)

7.3 ± 5.3 8.4 ± 6.0 .106

Variety of Produce Preferred (Total Number of Produce Preferred)

13.1 ± 10.9 13.0 ± 11.9 .977

Produce Intake Variety (Total Number of Different Produce Items Eaten in the Past Week)

16.9 ± 10.1 17.3 ± 11.4 .751

Note. Paired t-test was used to calculate differences between groups.

92

Figure 7. Child participants’ produce preference and intake variety.

The nutrition education and gardening program was evaluated as part of the Kids

on Campus evaluation process. Seventy-two children (48.0% response rate) completed

the Kids on Campus programmatic survey. Of those 72, 59 (81.9%) of the 150 1st through

4th graders were 1st and 2nd graders, and 13 (18.1%) were 3rd and 4th graders. Of the 1st

and 2nd graders, 43 (72.9%) liked, 9 (15.3%) sometimes liked, and 4 (6.8%) did not like

the nutrition education and gardening program. Among the 3rd and 4th graders, 3 (23.1%)

liked, 3 (23.1%) sometimes liked, and 7 (53.8%) did not like the nutrition education and

gardening program. Overall, 58 of the 72 students (80.6%) liked or sometimes liked the

nutrition education and gardening program.

6.9

9.6

6.27.3

13.1

16.9

7.39.1

5.6

8.4

13.0

17.3

Fruit Preference Fruit Intake Vegetable Preference

Vegetable Intake Total Produce Preference

Total Produce Intake

Pre-intervention Post-intervention

93

Female Caregiver Participant Data

Of the 250 surveys sent to female caregivers of children participating in the 2008

summer Kids on Campus Program, 99 (39.6% response rate) were returned. Table 10

describes the female caregiver participants, who were 34.7 ± 7.2 years and living in

households composed of 3.8 ± 1.2 members. Body mass index (BMI) classification and

perceived diet and health status for the female participants are shown in Table 11. Figure

8 also shows female caregiver’s BMI classification. Table 12 and Figure 9 describe the

readiness for produce intake among the female caregivers. Produce gardening habits and

readiness for gardening of female caregivers are summarized in Table 13 and Figure 9.

As noted in Table 13, 23 and 37 reported having fruit and vegetable gardens,

respectively. This mirrored the gardening readiness of female caregivers, with the same

number of caregivers being in the action and maintenance stages for fruit and vegetable

gardening.

94 Table 10

Characteristics of Female Participants and Their Households

Number of Female Caregivers

Percentage of Female Caregivers

RACE (n = 98)

American Indian or Native Alaskan

4 4.1%

Asian 5 5.1% African American 7 7.1% Caucasian 82 83.7%

MARITAL STATUS (n = 98)

Married 45 45.9% Divorced 26 26.5% Separated 4 4.1% Single/Never Married 23 23.5%

LEVEL OF EDUCATION (n = 99)

Less than High School 3 3.0% High School: Diploma or General Educational Development (GED)

26 26.3%

Some College or Higher 70 70.7%

HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY STATUS (n = 99)

Fully Food Secure 36 36.4% Marginal Food Security 14 14.1% Low Food Security 24 24.2% Very Low Food Security 25 25.3%

HOUSEHOLD FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM PARTICIPATION

National School Lunch Program (Free or Reduced Price; n = 99)

73 73.7%

School Breakfast Program (Free or Reduced Price; n = 99)

66 66.7%

95 Table 10: continued Head Start Program (n = 97)

19

19.6%

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC; n = 99)

23 23.2%

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP; n = 99)

53 53.5%

WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program (n = 99)

9 9.1%

Community Food Pantry (n = 99)

36 36.4%

HOUSEHOLD HAD TRANSPORTATION FOR FOOD AQUISITION (n = 98)

Yes 90 91.8% No 8 8.2%

HOUSEHOLD HUNTED FOR FOOD (n = 97)

Yes 20 20.6% No 77 79.4%

HOUSEHOLD FISHED FOR FOOD (n = 97)

Yes 14 14.4% No 83 85.6%

96 Table 11

Female Caregiver Body Mass Index and Perceived Diet Quality and Health Status



BODY MASS INDEX (BMI) CLASSIFICATION (n = 93) Obese (BMI >30) 43 46% Overweight (BMI 25-29.9)

27 29%

Normal (BMI 18.5-24.9) 20 22% Underweight (BMI < 18.5)

3 3%

PERCEIVED DIET QUALITY (n = 98)

Excellent 2 2% Very Good 10 10% Good 45 46% Fair 28 29% Poor 13 13%

PERCEIVED HEALTH STATUS (n = 98)

Excellent 4 4% Very Good 39 40% Good 38 39% Fair 14 14% Poor 3 3%

Note. Body mass index was calculated from self-reported height and weight data and were classified using CDC guidelines.

F

Figure 8. Fem

Obese44%

male caregivver participannts’ weight c

U

classification

Underweight3%

n.

Overw27

Normal20%

weight7%

97

98 Table 12

Female Participant Readiness for Eating Produce



READINESS FOR EATING FRUIT (n = 98)

Precontemplation 9 9.2% Contemplation 9 9.2% Preparation 9 9.2% Action 60 61.2% Maintenance 11 11.2% READINESS FOR EATING VEGETABLES (n = 97)

Precontemplation 7 7.2% Contemplation 8 8.2% Preparation 10 10.3% Action 58 59.8% Maintenance 14 14.4%

99 Table 13

Female Participant Gardening Habits and Readiness for Gardening Produce



HOUSEHOLD VEGETABLE GARDEN (n = 97)

Yes 37 38.1% No 60 61.8%

HOUSEHOLD FRUIT GARDEN (n = 96)

Yes 23 23.9% No 73 76.1%

READINESS FOR GARDENING VEGETABLES (n = 97)


READINESS FOR GARDENING FRUIT (n = 96)


100

Figure 9. Female caregiver produce and gardening readiness.

Table 14 summarizes the relationship of food security status (scale score) to

parameters measured, and Table 15 summarizes the relationship of female caregiver

habits to select parameters.

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Perc

enta

ge o

f Par

ticip

ants

Readiness Stage of Change

Garden Vegetables

Garden Fruit

Eat Vegetables

Eat Fruit

101 Table 14

Relationship of Food Security Status to Gardening- and Produce-Related Behaviors and Intakes

Characteristic Correlation Coefficient p-value

Child Vegetable Gardening Habits

.010 .888

Child Variety of Produce Preferred

-.112 .378

Child Variety of Produce Eaten

-.017 .893

Female Caregiver Vegetable Gardening Readiness

.051 .417

Female Caregiver Fruit Gardening Readiness

.088 .176

Female Caregiver Fruit Intake

-.170 .009

Female Caregiver Vegetable Intake

-.224 .001

Female Caregiver Total Produce Intake

-.205 .001

Note. Kendall’s tau was utilized to measure the relationship of food security to other factors.

102 Table 15

Relationship of Female Caregiver’s Habits to Gardening- and Produce-Related Behaviors and Intakes

Characteristic Correlation Coefficient p-value

FEMALE CAREGIVER’S VEGETABLE GARDEN READINESS b

Child Vegetable Gardening Habits b -.163 .021 Child Variety of Fruits Preferred b -.059 .659 Child Variety of Vegetables Preferred b -.084 .518 Child Variety of Produce Preferred b -.028 .826 Child Variety of Fruits Eaten b -.170 .188 Child Variety of Vegetables Eaten b -.103 .420 Child Variety of Produce Eaten b -.142 .263 Female Caregiver’s Readiness to Garden Fruit b

.607 <.001

Female Caregiver’s Vegetable Intake b .150 .036

FEMALE CAREGIVER’S FRUIT GARDEN READINESS c

Child Vegetable Gardening Habits c -.119 .100 Child Variety of Fruits Preferred c -.064 .638 Child Variety of Vegetables Preferred c -.017 .899 Child Variety of Produce Preferred c -.009 .944 Child Variety of Fruits Eaten c -.234 .075 Child Variety of Vegetables Eaten c -.073 .573 Child Variety of Produce Eaten c -.195 .129 Female Caregiver’s Fruit Intake c .275 .840

FEMALE CAREGIVER’S FRUIT INTAKE d

Child Variety of Fruits Preferred d -.370 .010 Child Variety of Vegetables Preferred d -.153 .271 Child Variety of Produce Preferred d -.275 .046 Child Variety of Fruits Eaten d .320 .021 Child Variety of Vegetables Eaten d .049 .723 Child Variety of Produce Eaten d .232 .087

FEMALE CAREGIVER’S VEGETABLE INTAKE e

Child Variety of Fruits Preferred e .045 .755 Child Variety of Vegetables Preferred e .042 .764

103 Table 15: continued Child Variety of Produce Preferred e

.053

.704

Child Variety of Fruits Eaten e .287 .040 Child Variety of Vegetables Eaten e .261 .058 Child Variety of Produce Eaten e .293 .031

FEMALE CAREGIVER’S PRODUCE INTAKE f

Child Variety of Fruits Preferred f -.117 .397 Child Variety of Vegetables Preferred f -.016 .905 Child Variety of Produce Preferred f -.069 .604 Child Variety of Fruits Eaten f .384 .004 Child Variety of Vegetables Eaten f .172 .193 Child Variety of Produce Eaten f .313 .016

Note. Kendall’s tau was utilized to measure the relationship the factors. b-f Factors with like superscripts indicate that the correlations of the characteristic in upper case were computed for its relationship to those in lower case.

Data were also stratified by food security status. Table 16 shows female caregiver

and household characteristics stratified by food security status, while Table 17 and Figure

10 summarize the differences in female caregivers’ BMI and fruit and vegetable intakes

by food security status. Table 18 shows female produce readiness in relation to food

security status, while Table 19 displays female produce gardening readiness in relation to

food security status.

104

Table 16

Female Caregiver and Household Characteristics Stratified by Food Security Status

Characteristic Number of Female Caregivers (%) p-value

Food Secure Food Insecure

MARITAL STATUS (n = 98)

Married 21 (21.4%) 24 (24.5%) .427 Not-married 29 (29.6%) 24 (24.5%)

LEVEL OF EDUCATION (n = 99)

No College 8 (8.1%) 21 (21.2%) .003 Some College or Higher 42 (42.4%) 28 (28.3%)

AVAILABILITY OF TRANSPORTATION FOR FOOD AQUISITION (n = 98)

Reliable Transportation 47 (47.9%) 43 (43.9%) .425 Unreliable Transportation 3 (3.1%) 5 (5.1%)

PARTICIPATION IN HUNTING FOR FOOD ACQUISITION (n = 97)

Hunt for Food 9 (9.3%) 11 (11.3%) .511 Do not Hunt for Food 41 (42.3%) 36 (37.1%)

PARTICIPATION IN FISHING FOR FOOD ACQUISITION (n = 97)

Fish for Food 6 (6.2%) 8 (8.2%) .482 Do not Fish for Food 44 (45.4%) 39 (40.2%)

FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM PARTICIPATION

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP; n = 99)

21 (21.2%) 32 (32.3%) .020

National School Lunch Program (Free- or Reduced- Price; n = 99)

30 (30.3%) 43 (43.4%) .002

105 Table 16: continued

School Breakfast Program (Free- or Reduced- Price; n = 99)

26 (26.3%)

40 (40.4%)

.002

Head Start Program (n = 97)

7 (7.2%) 12 (12.4%) .219

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC; n = 99)

8 (8.1%) 15 (15.2%) .085

WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program (n = 99)

1 (1.0%) 8 (8.1%) .013

Community Food Pantry (n = 99)

9 (9.1%) 27 (27.3%) <.001

PERCEIVED HEALTH (n = 98)

Poor or Fair 6 (6.1%) 11 (11.2%) .182 Good or Better 43 (43.9%) 38 (38.8%)

PERCEIVED DIET (n = 98)

Poor or Fair 15 (15.3%) 26 (26.5%) .015 Good or Better 35 (35.7%) 22 (22.5%)

BODY MASS INDEX (BMI) CLASSIFICATION (n = 93)

Normal or Underweight 16 (17.2%) 7 (7.5%) .035 Overweight or Obese 31 (33.3%) 39 (41.9%)

Note. Pearson Chi-Square test was used to stratify household characteristics by food security status.

106 Table 17

Female Caregiver Weight and Diet Characteristics Stratified by Food Security Status

Mean ± Standard Deviation (n, %) p-value


BMI (kg/m²) (n = 93)

28.3 ± 6.8 (47, 50.5%) 31.9 ± 10.3 (46, 49.5%) .075

Female Caregiver Daily Vegetable Serving (n = 95)

2.1 ± 1.2 (48, 50.5%) 1.5 ± 0.7 (47, 49.5%) .016

Female Caregiver Daily Fruit Serving (n = 96)

1.6 ± 0.8 (48, 50%) 1.3 ± 0.8 (48, 50%) .070

Note. Mann-Whitney test was utilized to calculate differences between groups.

107

Figure 10. Female caregiver body mass index and produce intake by food security status.

28.3

2.1 1.6

31.9

1.5 1.3

‐20

‐10

0

10

20

30

40

50

Average BMI Average Vegetable Serving Average Fruit Serving

Food Secure

Food Insecure

108 Table 18

Female Caregiver Produce Readiness Stratified by Food Security Status

Number of Female Caregivers p- value

Food Secure (%)

Food Insecure (%)

READINESS TO EAT FRUIT (n = 98)

Precontemplation, Contemplation, or Preparation Stage

11(11.2%) 16 (16.3%) .258

Action or Maintenance Stage 38 (38.8%) 33 (33.7%)

READINESS TO EAT VEGETABLES (n = 97)


9 (9.3%) 16 (16.5%) .092


Note. Pearson Chi-Square test was used to stratify parameters by food security status.

109 Table 19

Gardening Readiness and Habits of Female Caregivers Stratified by Food Security Status

Number of Female Caregivers (%) p-value


GARDENING FRUIT (n = 96)

Gardens Fruit 12 (12.5%) 11 (11.5%) .811

Does Not Garden Fruit 36 (37.5%) 37 (38.6%)

GARDENING VEGETABLES (n = 97)

Gardens Vegetables 20 (20.6%) 17 (17.5%) .480

Does Not Garden Vegetables 28 (28.9%) 32 (32.9%)

READINESS TO GARDEN FRUIT (n = 98)


11 (11.2%) 16 (16.3%) .258


READINESS TO GARDEN VEGETABLES (n = 97)


9 (9.3%) 16 (16.5%) .092


Note. Pearson Chi-Square test was used to stratify parameters by food security status.

As previously noted in chapter 3, before the intervention, surveys were sent to all

female caregivers (n = 250) of children participating in Kids on Campus. Tables 20 and

21 show female caregiver’s perception of their children’s produce and gardening habits

110 for all children stratified by food security, grades 1st through 6th who participated in the

summer of 2008.

Table 20

Female Caregiver’s Perception of Children’s Produce Intake Stratified by Food Security Status

Mean ± Standard Deviation (n, %) p-value


Daily Vegetable Servings (n = 156)

2.1 ± 1.0 (78, 50%) 1.7 ± 1.0 (78, 50%) .017

Daily Fruit Servings (n = 156)

2.0 ± 1.2 (78, 50%) 1.7 ± .9 (78, 50%) .072

ª Mann-Whitney test was utilized to calculate differences between groups.

111 Table 21

Female Caregiver’s Perception of Children’s Habits

Number of Child Participants (%) p- value


CHILD EATS MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF FRUIT PER DAY (n = 156)

Never or Sometimes 36 (23.1%) 56 (35.9%) .007 Often or Always 39 (25.0%) 25 (16.0%)

CHILD EATS MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF VEGETABLE PER DAY (n = 155)

Never or Sometimes 24 (15.5%) 53 (34.2%) < .001 Often or Always 50 (32.3%) 28 (18.1%)

CHILD EATS TWO OR MORE VEGETABLE SERVINGS AT A MEAL (n = 152)

Never or Sometimes 44 (28.9%) 67 (44.1%) .004 Often or Always 27 (17.8%) 14 (9.2%)

CHILD EATS CITRUS FRUIT OR JUICE (n = 160)

Yes 54 (33.8%) 43 (26.9%) .010 No 22 (13.8%) 41 (25.6%)

CHILD EATS FRUITS OR VEGETABLES AS SNACKS (n = 156)

Yes 67 (42.9%) 66 (42.3%) .077 No 7 (4.5%) 16 (10.3%)

CHILD IS INTERESTED IN EATING 3+ FRUIT PER DAY (n = 157)

Strongly Agree or Agree

57 (36.3%) 71 (45.2%) .041

Disagree or Strongly Disagree

19 (12.1%) 10 (6.4%)

CHILD IS INTERESTED IN EATING 3+ VEGETABLES PER DAY (n = 155)


44 (28.4%) 56 (36.1%) .209


30 (19.4%) 25 (16.1%)

112

CHILD IS INTERESTED IN GARDENING VEGETABLES (n = 150)


56 (37.3%) 70 (46.7%) .046


16 (10.7%) 8 (5.3%)

Note. Pearson Chi-Square test was used to stratify children’s characteristics by food security status.

113

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Fruit and vegetable intakes have been found to be related to household food

security status (Bhattacharya et al., 2004; Dixon et al., 2001; Kendall et al., 1996; Kropf

et al., 2007). For adult females and children living in food-insecure households, fruits and



Kendall et al., 1996; Kropf et al., 2007). Through the practice of gardening, a family can

grow fruits and vegetables at a lower cost than purchasing them, while increasing both

produce intake and physical activity. This study: (a) measured the effect of a nutrition

and gardening education program on Appalachian children’s fruit and vegetable intakes

and preferences; and (b) examined the relationship of food security status to gardening

habits and perceptions, produce intake, and personal characteristics of children and their

adult female caregivers.

In this study, participants were: (a) 91 children who completed a pre-test, nutrition

education and gardening program (intervention), and a post-test over a six-week period;

and (b) 99 female caregivers who completed a 79-item survey prior to the six-week

intervention period about themselves, their household, and their 157 children. Results

indicated that the six-week nutrition education and gardening intervention did not

significantly impact produce intake variety or produce preference variety among the

children participating in the program. Overall, household food security was not related to

the variety of produce eaten or preferred reported by children; however, it was related to

vegetable intake, education, diet quality, food assistance program participation, and body

114 mass index of the female caregivers. On the other hand, household food security was

related to the estimated children’s produce intake and preferences reported by the female

caregivers prior to the intervention. It was also found that children’s gardening habits

reflected that of their female caregiver’s, but children’s self-reported produce intake

variety was not related to their gardening habits. However, household food security was

not related to gardening habits or produce readiness of female caregivers.

Children Participants’ Produce Preference and Intake Variety

Produce intake is inadequate among children, which negatively impacts diet (Ball

et al., 2008; Gao et al., 2006; Langevin et al., 2007; Lorson et al., 2009). In the study

region, multiple studies have indicated the need for intervention in the Southeastern Ohio

Appalachian region in relation to promoting fruit and vegetable intake (Ball et al., 2008;

Cassady et al., 2007; Holben et al., 2004; Kropf et al., 2007; Luszczynska et al., 2007;

Walker et al., 2007; Wewers et al., 2006). One potential solution is to introduce

gardening to children, who may, in turn, influence the entire household’s habits

surrounding gardening and produce. Therefore, this research studied the effectiveness of

a six-week nutrition and gardening education program improve children’s preference for

and intake of fruits and vegetables.

In this study, produce intake variety did not significantly change after the

intervention (p = .751). Overall, children reported consuming 16.9 ± 10.1 different

produce items during the week prior to the intervention and 17.3 ± 11.4 during the last

week of the intervention. Similarly, neither fruit intake variety (p = .563) nor vegetable

115 intake variety (p = .106) changed after the intervention. More specifically, fruit and

vegetable intake variety were 9.6 ± 6.1 and 7.3 ± 5.3 different items during the week

prior to the intervention, respectively, and were 9.1 ± 6.9 and 8.4 ± 6.0 during the last

week of the intervention, respectively.

As with intake variety, produce (p = .977), fruit (p = .554), and vegetable (p =

.341) preference varieties did not significantly change after the intervention. Fruit

preference variety was 6.9 ± 6.6 pre-intervention and 7.3 ± 6.9 post-intervention.

Vegetable preferences were 6.2 ± 5.5 and 5.6 ± 5.9 at the pre- and post-intervention time

frames, respectively. Total produce preferences of the children, at pre- and post-

intervention were 13.1 ± 10.9 and 13.0 ± 11.9 (p = .977), respectively. When considering

these intakes and preferences, it is important to underscore that these values do not equate

to servings consumed. They relate, however, to the variety of produce eaten or preferred

in the previous week. In subsequent sections of this chapter, the relationship of these

measures will be related to food security and caretaker qualities.

While the variety measures did not significantly change through the course of the

intervention, it may be that the children began at a high level. Studies typically use

children’s produce intakes and preferences (Ball et al., 2008; Haire-Joshu et al., 2003;

Lakkakula et al., 2008; Lorson et al., 2009; Nanney et al., 2005; Nanney, Johnson et al.,

2007; Nanney, Schermbeck et al., 2007) rather than varieties, which were used in this

study. This could also be explained in multiple ways, including a lack of understanding

by the children participants during survey completion, or an overestimation by the

children on weekly produce intake. The modification of the Saint Louis University 4 Kids

116 Food Frequency Questionnaire (Haire-Joshu et al., 2003) could have lead to

misinterpretation of the intakes and preferences options for the children. Therefore, future

studies should use the Saint Louis University 4 Kids Food Frequency Questionnaire

produce intake and preference variety tool when using the recommended methods (Haire-

Joshu et al., 2003). This may enable a total recall from both caregiver and child in order

to get a more complete idea of the child’s diet both at home and at school. It could also

provide insight on what type of produce variety the household provides, along with

possible limitations and cultural behaviors. The pictorial tool designed for this study

could be used in an in-person interview with both caregiver and child and be validated in

conjunction with the Saint Louis University tool and dietary record information.

Food Security

Household Food Security Status

The overall household food insecurity rate in this study (49.5%) was more than

four times that of the nation and the state of Ohio in 2007, which was consistent with

other research from the study region (Bletzacker et al., 2007; Hazen et al., 2008; Holben

et al., 2004; Holben & Pheley, 2006; Kendall et al., 1996; Kropf et al., 2007; Meek, 2005;

Nord et al., 2008; Pheley et al., 2002; Walker et al., 2007). Low and very low household

food security was 24.2% and 25.3%, respectively, more than twice that of the nation. In

2007, the estimate of food insecurity was 11%, while in Ohio from 2005 to 2007; it was

estimated to be 12.2% of households (Nord et al., 2008). Estimates of low and very low

food security nationwide were 7.0% and 4.1%, respectively, while in Ohio it was

117 estimated that 7.7% of households and 4.5% of households were classified as low food

security and very low food security, respectively (Nord et al., 2008). With half of the

households in our study classified as food-insecure, and one-fourth of the households

classified as low or very low food security, our convenience sample may not accurately

represent the study region, state, or nation. However, it gives insight into the families

participating in Kids on Campus, and it may indicate the need to address not only this

issue among families in Kids on Campus, but also families living in Athens County,

Ohio, and the region.

Food insecurity has been associated with lower education, lower income, being an

ethnic minority, living in a non-suburban residence, and participation in government

assistance programs (Adams et al., 2003; Alaimo et al., 1998; Alaimo et al., 2001b;

Bhattacharya et al., 2004; Cutts et al., 1998; Gundersen et al., 2008; Herman et al., 2004;

Holben & Myles, 2004; Jones & Frongillo, 2006; Nord et al., 2008; Oberholser & Tuttle,

2004; Quandt et al., 2004; Quandt et al., 2004; Rose, 1999). In this study, however, the

education level of the females was higher than what is typically seen with food-insecure

households (Jones & Frongillo, 2006), with 70.7% (p = .003), almost three-fourths of

female caregivers, reporting to have some college education or higher. Although this rate

is not implying college completion, it is much higher than recent rates of college degrees

in Ohio (21.1%), Appalachia (17.7%), and the nation (24.4%). Similar results have been

found in the area (Kropf et al., 2007; Walker et al., 2007) and could be explained by the

community from where our sample was drawn. Ohio University is located in Athens

County, possibly leading to the higher level of education in the county, as compared to

118 the rest of the state. There is also an adult career center and community college, which

may also be contributing to this trend. More specifically, compared to caregivers from

food-insecure households, a greater proportion of caregivers from food-secure

households had some college or higher (p = .003). While other characteristics besides

education have been associated with food insecurity, in this study, marital status,

availability of transportation for food, hunting for food, and fishing for food were not

significantly different between caregivers from food-secure and food-insecure

households.

Participation in food assistance programs has also been associated with food

insecurity. Many food-insecure families participate in food assistance programs,

including SNAP, WIC, and the National School Meals Program (Condrasky & Marsh,

2005; Nord et al., 2008; Oberholser & Tuttle, 2004). In 2007, more than half (53.9%) of

food-insecure families living in the United States studied participated in a food assistance

program in the 30 days previous to data collection for the national estimates (Nord et al.,

2008). Food assistance program participation by households in this study varied. More

than half of our sample participated in the National School Lunch Program (73.7%), the

School Breakfast Program (66.7%), or the SNAP (53.5%). However, participation was

lower in the Head Start Program (19.6%) and WIC (23.2%) most likely due to

qualification requirements. To illustrate, if children are over the age of five, families do

not qualify for WIC benefits unless there is a female who is pregnant or breastfeeding,

and families cannot participate in Head Start if their children are of school-age. Along

with WIC, WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Participation was also low (8.1%). However,

119 community food pantry usage (36.4%) was greater than what was found in 2007 (21.0%)

nationwide (Nord et al., 2008).

Participation in several of these programs differed between those from food-

secure and food-insecure households, indicating participants were utilizing opportunities

offered in the Athens community, possibly as a coping strategy of being food insecure.

Participation in SNAP (p = .020), National School Lunch Program (p = .002), School

Breakfast Program (p = .002), WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program (p = .013), and

Community Food Pantry (p = <..001) was significantly greater among food-insecure

households compared to food-secure ones. The self-selection principle could explain

these findings. In the United States, individuals choose or “self-select” whether or not to

participate in food assistance programs. The higher participation of food-insecure

participants in food assistance programs supports that these insecure households seek

assistance due to their perception that it is needed (Holben & ADA, 2006; Nord et al.,

2008). This participation may also be a proxy for a higher income among food-secure

households, as the Federal Programs all have income guidelines. Participation in Kids on

Campus may also lead to higher food assistance participation rates in female caregivers

in Athens County. Such programs can assist female caregivers in connecting with others

in the area in similar situations, exposing them to other programs they otherwise may not

have been aware of. These practices can also benefit the households through increased

social capital while increasing their food security. Finally, Kids on Campus may itself be

viewed as an assistance program, further explaining the increased rate of food insecurity

among participants.

120 Food Security, Body Weight, Diet, and Health

Adult individuals living in a food-insecure households, especially females, are

more likely to be overweight or obese than those in food-secure households (Lyons et al.,

2008; Martin & Ferris, 2007). In this study, BMIs did not differ between food-insecure

women (31.9 ± 10.3), compared to their food-insecure (28.3 ± 6.8) counterparts (p =

.075). However, when stratified by weight classification, food-insecure women were

more likely to be overweight or obese, compared to those from food-secure households (p

= .035). In fact, among the food insecure, 27% of female caregivers self reported weight

classified as overweight and 44% classified as obese. Binge eating in relation to food-

insecurity has been associated with weight gain in women due to the cyclical nature of

food assistance programs (Olson, 2005; Webb et al., 2008). This, along with decreased

diet quality, leads to the counterintuitive finding of overweight and obesity in food-

insecure women. Food-insecurity is associated with lack of nutritious food for an active,

healthy life. However, high calorie, high fat, low nutrient-dense foods tend to be less

expensive than low calorie, low fat, and high nutrient dense items (Mendoza et al., 2006).

Therefore, the less nutrient-dense, empty calorie foods replace the more nutritious

options leading to weight gain, especially when coupled with binge eating when food is

plentiful. Future research should measure the impact that gardening interventions have on

the diet quality and eating behaviors of female caregivers. Due to the high food assistance

program participation rates of this study, research should also attempt to compare groups

in such interventions to determine how much of an impact food assistance program

participation has on female caregiver’s weight status. National studies using the National

121 Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data could also be utilized to

explore these trends nationally.

Poor diet quality and health have also been associated with food-insecurity

(Chang et al., 2008; Condrasky & Marsh, 2005; Kendall et al., 1996; Langevin et al.,

2007; McIntyre et al., 2003; Olson, 2005; Pheley et al., 2002; Vozoris & Tarasuk, 2003).

Studies have found as food insecurity worsens, overall health status also worsens

(Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2007; Holben et al., 2006; Holben & Pheley, 2006; Pheley et al.,

2002; Tarasuk & Beaton, 1999). Those who report food insecurity also report poor

overall health more often than those who were food-secure (Lee & Frongillo, 2001;

Pheley et al., 2002). This is a logical relationship due to diet quality’s impact on health

status. In 2003, a report found that those with incomes below the poverty line purchased

fewer fruits and vegetables due to taste and convenience issues (Stewart & Blisard,

2008). However, when household income increased as little as 10%, fruit and vegetable

purchases increased (Stewart & Blisard, 2008). These findings reinforce the need for

increased produce intake in low-income families in order to increase diet quality and

health status.

Food insecurity negatively impacts multiple aspects of the diet, including

decreased quality and quantity of food intake and diet (Chang et al., 2008; Condrasky &

Marsh, 2005; Hazen et al., 2008; Holben et al., 2006; Holben et al., 2004; Holben &

Pheley, 2006; Kendall et al., 1996; Kropf et al., 2007; Langevin et al., 2007; McIntyre et

al., 2003; Olson, 2005; Vozoris & Tarasuk, 2003; Walker et al., 2007). In this study,

more than half of respondents (58%) reported their diet as good, very good, or excellent.

122 However, diet quality significantly differed between caregivers from food-secure homes,

versus food-insecure homes (p = .015), with a greater proportion of food-secure

caregivers perceiving their diet to be of higher quality. Over half of the females were in

the “action” stage of eating fruits and vegetables, while almost half reported

“precontemplation” for gardening fruits and vegetables; however, neither of these

significantly differed between food-secure and insecure groups. Female caregiver

readiness to eat fruits (p = .258) and vegetables (p = .092) were mostly reported as

“action or maintenance” stage for both food-secure and insecure participants, however

there was not a significant difference between these groups.

Female caregiver fruit (tau = -.170, p = .009), vegetable (tau = -.224, p = .001),

and produce (tau = -.205, p = .001) intakes were significantly related to food security,

consistent with other studies (Kendall et al., 1996; Kropf et al., 2007; Olson, 2005). Both

fruit and vegetable intake significantly decreased as food insecurity worsened. The

average daily vegetable (1.5 ± 0.7) and fruit (1.3 ± 0.8) intake of food-insecure women

was lower than recommended. Similarly, food-secure women also had low intakes of

both vegetables and fruit (2.1 ±1.2; 1.6 ± 0.8). However, only vegetable intake of food-

insecure women was significantly lower, compared to their food-secure counterparts (p =

.016). This could indicate an overall need to improve produce intake in women, not only

those in food-insecure households. It also supports, however, that food insecurity further

compromises vegetable intake.

Diets of individuals living in households characterized by food insecurity have

been found to have below the recommended intake of kilocalories, protein, calcium,

123 vitamins B-6 and B-12, riboflavin, niacin, magnesium, iron, and zinc, compared to those

living in food-secure households (Dixon et al., 2001; Lee & Frongillo, 2001; Matheson

et al., 2002; Olson, 1999; Rose & Oliveira, 1997). Studies have shown food-insecure

households to be of particular concern in relation to decreased produce intake, as this can

lead to increased risk for certain cancers, cardiovascular disease, and lower overall

wellness (Ahn et al., 2005; Cartmel et al., 2005; Dixon et al., 2001; Genkinger et al.,

2004; Guenther et al., 2006; Kendall et al., 1996; Kirsh et al., 2007; Larsson et al., 2006;

Lee et al., 2006; Pierce et al., 2007; Pierce, Stefanick et al., 2007).

Unlike diet, health status did not significantly differ (p = .182). The self-reported

health status of the female caregivers in this study ranged from excellent to poor, with

83% of respondents reporting to have good, very good, or excellent health status. Health

problems and status could be alleviated with more consistent access to healthy food and

education for these families. Future studies should explore the relationship between diet

quality and health status in food-insecure females to determine what role poor diet quality

plays in food-insecure families’ quality of life.

Food Security, Gardening, and Diet

Food security and female caregiver’s gardening and diet.

Women living in food-insecure households have been shown to consume less than

the recommended amounts of produce (Ahn et al., 2005; Cartmel et al., 2005; Dixon et

al., 2001; Genkinger et al., 2004; Guenther et al., 2006; Kendall et al., 1996; Kirsh et al.,

2007; Larsson et al., 2006; Lee et al., 2006; Pierce et al., 2007; Pierce, Stefanick et al.,

2007), which gardening may be able to alleviate. In this study, household food security

124 and gardening habits were not found to be significantly related in the female caregivers or

the children (p > .05). Similarly, having a fruit (p = .811) or vegetable (p = .480) garden

did not significantly differ between food-secure and food-insecure homes. Finally, female

readiness for gardening vegetables (p = .092), gardening fruit (p =.258), eating vegetables

(p = .092), and eating fruit (p = .258) did not significantly differ either.

When comparing food-secure households to food-insecure households, gardening

readiness did not significantly differ between groups. Gardening readiness followed a

similar trend to readiness to eat produce, with most reporting “precontemplation;”

however, more food-secure households reported “action or maintenance” than food -

insecure for gardening fruit (38.8%) and vegetables (41.2%). Considering the number of

female caregivers in the “action” stage for eating produce but “precontemplation” stage

for gardening, this may indicate that many of them are eating produce but not growing it.

Precontemplation means that an individual is not considering the behavior in question,

while action indicates the behavior is already occurring. Female vegetable intake was

significantly related to gardening vegetables (p = .036), however fruit intake was not

significantly related to gardening fruit (p = .840). This indicates that those females who

garden vegetables are more likely to have higher vegetable intake, where as gardening

fruit has no impact. In order to better assess this behavior change, future studies should

measure garden usage of participants along with produce intake. Gardening readiness is a

new measure developed for this study; therefore, more research is needed on the

construct to further evaluate its validity.

125

As noted in the previous section, food insecurity significantly impacted produce

intake and diet quality of female caregiver’s in this study, which follows trends of

previous research. However, gardening was not related to either food security status of

the household nor produce intake of the female caregivers. This raises the question of

why female caregivers are not choosing to garden in times of food-insecurity? What are

the barriers or limitations to gardening in this population? Future research should

investigate this, focusing on both food-secure and food-insecure households to determine

whom the specific barriers impact most or if the gardening trend is decreasing in

popularity. Programs similar to the one used in this study with children participants could

be developed for families in conjunction to food assistance programs in order to increase

gardening habits.

Food security and children’s diet.

This study also examined if, at the onset of the study, whether household food

security status was related to produce preferences and intakes of child participants. It was

found that household food security was not related to the produce preferences (tau = -

.112, p = .378) and intakes (tau = -.017, p = .893) of the child participants.

Prior to the nutrition education and gardening intervention, female caregivers

reported their perception of children’s produce and gardening habits. It was found that

food security was significantly related to female caregiver’s perception of children’s

vegetable gardening habits, produce variety, and produce intake. Child daily vegetable

servings were significantly different per household, according to their female caregivers,

with children living in food-secure households eating 2.1 ± 1.0 servings a day and those

126 in food-insecure households reporting 1.7 ± 1.0 servings a day (p = .017). Female

caregiver’s perception of children’s fruit intake did not significantly differ among

households. Their perception of their children’s produce variety was impacted, however,

with children from food-secure households consuming more than one type of vegetable

(p < .001) and fruit (p = .007), more often than those from food-insecure households.

While intakes varied between groups, children from food-insecure households were not

less likely to consume citrus fruit or juice, compared to those from food-secure

households. However, children from food-insecure households were less likely to

consume two or more vegetable servings at a meal, with 44.1% caretakers reporting their

child would never or sometimes meet this recommendation (p = .004). However, food-

insecure children were not less likely to be interested in consuming three or more fruit or

vegetable servings daily. Similarly, fruit or vegetables as snacks, or interest in gardening

vegetables were not different by food security status in children (p > .05).

Produce intake has been found to be deficient in children, in both food-secure and

insecure homes. A study focusing on fruit and vegetable intake of rural mothers and

children found that most produce intake was inadequate (Nanney, Schermbeck et al.,

2007). More than half of the adolescents in a Canadian study did not meet the 5-a-day

fruit and vegetable recommendations; however, intake did increase with increased family

income, education, and two parent households (Riediger et al., 2007). A study conducted

in rural North Carolina found children who consumed excessive amounts of sweets did

not meet the recommendations for fruits, vegetables, dairy, or grains (Ball et al., 2008).

Children in food-insecure households have lower intakes of fruits, vegetables, and milk

127 products, which directly impacts their calcium, vitamins A and C intake (Dixon et al.,

2001). These findings were consistent with what was found with female caregiver’s

perception of their children’s produce intake, however, inconsistent with children’s

perception of their own diet.

Previous work found that children in food-insecure households had lower intakes

of dark green vegetables and fruits than those in food-secure households (Casey et al.,

2001; Lorson et al., 2009). Yet, our study did not actually measure the children’s produce

intake. Rather, it measured produce variety consumed and preferred and the female

caregiver’s perception of their children’s intake. Even though children are typically

protected from hunger, their diets can still be impacted (Rose, 1999). Children in food-

insecure households have lower intakes of fruits, vegetables, and milk products, which

directly impacts their calcium, vitamins A and C intake (Dixon et al., 2001). Children

typically consume the types of food provided by their caretakers. When household food

supplies are depleted, due to food insecurity, children’s diets suffer, particularly intake of

produce (Matheson et al., 2002). This could explain the differences in produce intakes

found in this study. Female caregiver’s responses could reflect their own diminished

produce variety when responding for their children. The variety of produce reported by

the children in the intervention portion of the study may be due to intake of produce

outside the home, such as during school meals, or it may be explained by children not

correctly reporting their intake. In addition, the caregivers were asked about their

children’s daily intake, while children were asked about the past week. Future studies

should survey and measure children’s produce intake and preference variety in

128 conjunction to female caregiver’s perceptions differently than this study due to

conflicting reports from caregivers and children on produce variety. This can be achieved

through combined interviews and surveying of children and caregivers together, which

enables discussion between the two parties on dietary intake leading to a more complete

report.

Even though our sample had a high level of household food-insecurity, it was not

related to child participant’s perception of their produce intake variety or preference

variety. While post-intervention food security status of the children was not measured,

future interventions should do so. Anecdotally, the researchers observed throughout the

study that many children, when provided with the weekly produce, ate the food right

away, and some discussed ways they would share it with their families. When harvesting

the vegetables grown in the education program gardens, children were willing to taste

whatever products were available (radishes, greens, herbs), which may reflect an interest

in trying new foods. Future studies should include questions pertaining to child food

security and produce to further asses their relationship.

Female Caregiver Gardening and Produce Habits

At its onset, this study explored whether female caregiver’s gardening habits were

related to their perceptions of the child’s gardening habits and their child’s produce

intake and preferences. Less than half of female caregiver’s reported having a fruit

(23.9%) or vegetable (38.1%) garden in this study. However, they reported 84% of their

children were interested in gardening vegetables, which was significantly related to

129 female caregiver gardening habits (tau = -.163, p = .021). Female caregiver gardening

habits were not related to produce intakes of the child (tau = -.142, p = .263) or

preferences (tau = -.028, p = .826). Fruit intake of female caregivers was significantly

related to child variety of fruits preferred (tau = -.370, p = .010), child variety of produce

preferred (tau = -.275, p = .046), and child variety of fruits eaten (tau = .320, p = .021).

Female caregiver vegetable intake, however, was only significantly related to child

variety of produce eaten (tau = .293, p = .031). Understandably, female caregiver produce

intake was also related to child variety of produce eaten (tau = .313, p = .016).

Nanney and others (Nanney, Johnson et al., 2007) found that those families in

rural areas who ate homegrown produce had an increase in produce availability, along

with an increase in their child’s preference for new fruits and vegetables. In fact,

gardening projects have been done to improve the health and fruit and vegetable intake of

the participants, with most having positive impacts on their participants’ produce intake

and gardening and nutrition knowledge (Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005; Hermann et

al., 2006; McAleese & Rankin, 2007; Morris & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2002; Nanney, Johnson

et al., 2007; Stables et al., 2005; Van Duyn & Pivonka, 2000). Compared to other

interventions, gardening is an inexpensive way to increase produce intake as well as

physical activity in households (Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005; McAleese & Rankin,

2007; Nanney, Johnson et al., 2007). Future studies should assess this through follow-up

testing of both children female caregivers to assess the total impact of gardening on their

lifestyle.

130

Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions

Gardening has been shown to be positively related to access to fruits and

vegetables, and is a relatively inexpensive way to grow fresh produce (Holben et al.,

2004; McAleese & Rankin, 2007; Nanney, Johnson et al., 2007; Rose & Richards, 2004).

Further, gardening interventions have been shown to positively impact produce intake of

children and their households, which may also increase their food security (Graham &

Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005; Hermann et al., 2006; Holben et al., 2004; McAleese & Rankin,

2007; Morris & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2002). Gardening projects have been conducted to

improve the health and fruit and vegetable intake of the participants, with most having

positive impacts on their participants’ produce intake and gardening and nutrition

knowledge (Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005; Hermann et al., 2006; McAleese &

Rankin, 2007; Morris & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2002; Nanney, Johnson et al., 2007; Stables et

al., 2005; Van Duyn & Pivonka, 2000). However, variables measured in this study as part

of the gardening intervention and produce variety were not found to be significantly

different after the intervention, which could be for a variety of reasons including length

of study, survey tool used, and population studied.

Previous studies have found mixed results (Robinson-O'Brien et al., 2009) in

relation to gardening and produce intake, and no program has been developed to

consistently improve produce intake in children. However, had our study population not

started at such a high level of produce intake and preference, more significant results may

have been achieved. A study in 2005 had one-hour interventions for several weeks with

131 seven to nine year old children in a school-based program focused on specific fruit and

vegetables that could be increased in the diet (Nanney et al., 2005). Another type of six-

week program focused on fruit and vegetable intake in Boston found that those who had

higher fruit and vegetable intakes had a higher interest in healthy eating (McNeill et al.,

2007). Both studies indicate that length of study could increase produce intake in

children, however, those who are currently eating high levels of produce may be the most

involved participants. Future studies should assess participants’ readiness levels pre-

intervention in order to cater the program to all participants needs for more significant

results.

The size of the population used could have limited the results through limited

competition of child surveys (60.7%). The high initial produce intake and preference also

inhibited the potential of significant results in the post-testing. Children’s pre-

intervention average weekly produce intake was 16.91 ± 10.1, which is almost half of the

maximum 36 items surveyed. These results could also have been impacted by the survey

tool used.

Parental reporting of children’s dietary intake has been utilized in other previous

research projects. One study found that parents accurately reported their child’s intake,

with only some discrepancy on juices and combination foods that included fruits and

vegetables (Linneman et al., 2004). However, another similar study done in the

Netherlands found poor correlation between parent and child responses to the child’s

vegetable intake, but better correlation with their fruit intake (Reinaerts et al., 2007). The

results of this study support that caregiver input on children’s produce intake may be

132 essential in order to collect valid results. When assessing children’s produce intake,

future studies should use combined methodology to get complete results.

Food security was shown to impact a number of variables in female caregivers

including vegetable intake, weight status, and perceived diet quality. These findings were

fairly consistent with previous literature (Drewnowski & Specter, 2004; Hazen et al.,

2008; Holben et al., 2004; Holben & Pheley, 2006; Kropf et al., 2007; Olson, 1999;

Olson & Strawderman, 2008; Pheley et al., 2002; Rose & Oliveira, 1997; Rose, 1999;

Tarasuk & Beaton, 1999; Townsend et al., 2001; Walker et al., 2007; Wilde & Peterman,

2006). Gardening and health status have both been found to be related to food security

status ( Holben et al., 2006; Holben et al., 2004; Lee & Frongillo, 2001; Pheley et al.,

2002; Stuff et al., 2004; Walker et al., 2007), however, this study did not agree with those

findings. Food insecurity would have a similar impact on diet quality and vegetable

intake, but weight status seems counterintuitive. Both diet quality and vegetable intake

decreased in food-insecure female caregivers, however overweight and obesity rates rose.

These results, in fact, do relate to the literature due to the poor nutritional status of

females in food-insecure homes who have been found to have higher intakes of lower

nutrient-dense foods with higher calories rather than fresh produce due to cost and shelf-

life issues. This poor diet quality and possible binge eating then leads to overweight and

obesity in these women, which needs to be addressed through nutrition education and

counseling.

Gardening habits of the female caregivers were found to significantly relate to

female vegetable intake and children’s gardening habits. These findings were consistent

133 with previous studies (Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005; Nanney, Johnson et al., 2007)

which found that family influence can increase children’s interest in both produce and

gardening. It also shows that when produce is available, intake increases in females,

which in turn may influence children’s intake in the future. Therefore, gardening can be

an inexpensive way to not only increase produce availability, but also variety and intake

in both women and children.

Recommendations

Suggestions for future studies and programming by nutrition professionals include

longer interventions with more in-depth information, post-testing the female caregiver

participants, along with a follow-up of the child participants in order to assess the impact

on their long-term diet and gardening. Some factors that could have impacted this study

include intervention length, population size, and produce habits of female caregivers and

children. A longer, more in-depth study focusing on both family and child nutrition and

gardening education may be needed to have more of an impact on produce intake and

preference variety of children. This would also allow for a cohesive interview process

with both caregiver and child leading to a more reliable survey tool.

Length of study has been varied in such nutrition education and gardening

programs with inconsistent results (Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of

California, 2009; Hermann et al., 2006; McAleese & Rankin, 2007; Morris & Zidenberg-

Cherr, 2002; Nanney, Johnson et al., 2007; Robinson-O'Brien et al., 2009). Therefore, a

longer time frame than the six-weeks of this program may have led to a positive effect on

134 children’s produce intake and preference while allowing for more information to be

discussed.

The survey instrument used had not been previously validated; however, it was

based on the previously validated Saint Louis University 4 Kids Food Frequency

Questionnaire. The Saint Louis University 4 Kids Food Frequency Questionnaire was

intended to be read allowed to parents in order for them to respond for their children. Our

study did not have this option since we did not have one-on-one contact with the parents

pre- and post- intervention, and so the children were given the surveys on the first day of

the program. This could have lead to some confusion on the child’s part since each group

of 25 children were allotted three to four teaching assistants to assist in the completion of

the survey. Reading and comprehension could have become an issue, even though all

children involved were given picture surveys and detailed directions on how to complete

the survey both pre and post intervention. With this limitation, results from the child’s

preference and intakes could have been affected.

Dietetic and nutrition professionals can use these findings to develop other

interventions including gardening and nutrition education with both children and their

families. For more significant results, future studies should focus on more nutrition

education including the benefits of gardening. By introducing the benefits of gardening

and how families can use it as an opportunity to increase physical activity and produce

intake, dietetic professionals can improve overall health of low-income families who may

not have done so otherwise. Future research should address the complex issue of

overweight and obesity in food-insecure women through assessment of women’s

135 nutritional education levels and diet habits. These findings could then be used for the

development of nationwide nutrition education programs which could be used in

conjunction with food-assistance programs.

Even though this nutrition education and gardening intervention did not

significantly impact children’s produce intake or preference variety, it did find that food-

insecurity impacts both female and children’s diets. Although gardening was not

associated with produce intake or food security, nutrition professionals and researchers

should continue to include it as a way to increase produce and physical activity in

communities, whether regardless of food security status.

136

REFERENCES

Adams, E. J., Grummer-Strawn, L., & Chavez, G. (2003). Food insecurity is associated

with increased risk of obesity in California women. The Journal of Nutrition,

133(4), 1070-1074.

Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California. (2009). Garden based

learning workgroup. Retrieved March 4, 2009, from

http://groups.ucanr.org/kidgarden/index.cfm

Ahn, J., Gammon, M. D., Santella, R. M., Gaudet, M. M., Britton, J. A., Teitelbaum, S.

L., et al. (2005). Associations between breast cancer risk and the catalase genotype,

fruit and vegetable consumption, and supplement use. American Journal of

Epidemiology, 162(10), 943-952.

Alaimo, K., Briefel, R. R., Frongillo, E. A., Jr, & Olson, C. M. (1998). Food

insufficiency exists in the United States: Results from the third national health and

nutrition examination survey (NHANES III). American Journal of Public Health,

88(3), 419-426.

Alaimo, K., Olson, C. M., & Frongillo, E. A., Jr. (2001a). Food insufficiency and

American school-aged children's cognitive, academic, and psychosocial

development. Pediatrics, 108(1), 44-53.

137 Alaimo, K., Olson, C. M., & Frongillo, E. A., Jr. (2001b). Low family income and food

insufficiency in relation to overweight in US children: Is there a paradox? Archives

of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 155(10), 1161-1167.

Alaimo, K., Olson, C. M., & Frongillo, E. A. (2002). Family food insufficiency, but not

low family income, is positively associated with dysthymia and suicide symptoms

in adolescents. The Journal of Nutrition, 132(4), 719-725.

Alaimo, K., Olson, C. M., Frongillo, E. A., Jr, & Briefel, R. R. (2001). Food

insufficiency, family income, and health in US preschool and school-aged children.

American Journal of Public Health, 91(5), 781-786.

Anderson, S. A. (1990). Core indicators of nutritional state for difficult-to-sample

populations. Journal of Nutrition, 102, 1559.

Anderson, J. V., Bybee, D. I., Brown, R. M., McLean, D. F., Garcia, E. M., Breer, M. L.,

et al. (2001). 5 a day fruit and vegetable intervention improves consumption in a

low income population. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 101(2), 195-

202.

Andrews, M. (2008). Food security in the United States: Community food security.

Retrieved February 24, 2009, from

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/community.htm

138 Appalachian Regional Commission. (2008). Underlying socioeconomic factors

influencing health disparities in the Appalachian region. Washington, DC:

Appalachian Regional Commission. Retrieved February 24, 2009, from

http://www.arc.gov/images/reports/2007/healthdisparities/TOC_ExecSummary_He

alth_Disparities.pdf

Ashiabi, G. S., & O'Neal, K. K. (2007, September). Children's health status: Examining

the associations among income poverty, material hardship, and parental factors.

PLoS ONE, 2(9), e940. Retrieved June 13, 2009, from

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000940

ashiabi 2007.txt

Ask, A. S., Hernes, S., Aarek, I., Johannessen, G., & Haugen, M. (2006, December 7).

Changes in dietary pattern in 15 year old adolescents following a 4 month dietary

intervention with school breakfast--a pilot study. Nutrition Journal, 5, 33. Retrieved

June 13, 2009 from http://www.nutritionj.com/content/pdf/1475-2891-5-33.pdf

Ball, S. C., Benjamin, S. E., & Ward, D. S. (2008). Dietary intakes in north Carolina

child-care centers: Are children meeting current recommendations? Journal of the

American Dietetic Association, 108(4), 718-721.

Behringer, B., & Friedell, G. H. (2006, October). Appalachia: Where place matters in

health. Preventing Chronic Disease, 3(4), Retrieved June 13, 2009, from

http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2006/oct/06_0067.htm

139 Bhattacharya, J., Currie, J., & Haider, S. (2004). Poverty, food insecurity, and nutritional

outcomes in children and adults. Journal of Health Economics, 23(4), 839-862.

Bickel, G., Nord, M., Price, C., Hamilton, W., & Cook, J. (2000). Guide to measuring

household food security, revised 2000 (No. 6, 1-82). Alexandria, VA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service.

Bletzacker, K. M., Holben, D. H., & Holcomb, J. P. (2007). Community food security of

the southeastern Appalachian region of Ohio [Abstract]. FASEB Journal, 21(6),

A1051.

Blumberg, S. J., Bialostosky, K., Hamilton, W. L., & Briefel, R. R. (1999). The

effectiveness of a short form of the household food security scale. American

Journal of Public Health, 89(8), 1231-1234.

Bronte-Tinkew, J., Zaslow, M., Capps, R., Horowitz, A., & McNamara, M. (2007). Food

insecurity works through depression, parenting, and infant feeding to influence

overweight and health in toddlers. The Journal of Nutrition, 137(9), 2160-2165.

Carlson, S. J., Andrews, M. S., & Bickel, G. W. (1999). Measuring food insecurity and

hunger in the united states: Development of a national benchmark measure and

prevalence estimates. The Journal of Nutrition, 129(2S Suppl), 510S-516S.

140 Carmichael, S. L., Yang, W., Herring, A., Abrams, B., & Shaw, G. M. (2007). Maternal

food insecurity is associated with increased risk of certain birth defects. The

Journal of Nutrition, 137(9), 2087-2092.

Cartmel, B., Bowen, D., Ross, D., Johnson, E., & Mayne, S. T. (2005). A randomized

trial of an intervention to increase fruit and vegetable intake in curatively treated

patients with early-stage head and neck cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers

Prevention, 14(12), 2848-2854.

Casey, P., Goolsby, S., Berkowitz, C., Frank, D., Cook, J., Cutts, D., et al. (2004).

Maternal depression, changing public assistance, food security, and child health

status. Pediatrics, 113(2), 298-304.

Casey, P. H., Simpson, P. M., Gossett, J. M., Bogle, M. L., Champagne, C. M., Connell,

C., et al. (2006). The association of child and household food insecurity with

childhood overweight status. Pediatrics, 118(5), e1406-e1413, Retrieved June 13,

2009, from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/118/5/e1406

Casey, P. H., Szeto, K., Lensing, S., Bogle, M., & Weber, J. (2001). Children in food-

insufficient, low-income families: Prevalence, health, and nutrition status. Archives

of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 155(4), 508-514.

Casey, P. H., Szeto, K. L., Robbins, J. M., Stuff, J. E., Connell, C., Gossett, J. M., et al.

(2005). Child health-related quality of life and household food security. Archives of

Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 159(1), 51-56.

141 Cassady, D., Jetter, K. M., & Culp, J. (2007). Is price a barrier to eating more fruits and

vegetables for low-income families? Journal of the American Dietetic Association,

107(11), 1909-1915.

Chang, M. W., Nitzke, S., Guilford, E., Adair, C. H., & Hazard, D. L. (2008). Motivators

and barriers to healthful eating and physical activity among low-income overweight

and obese mothers. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 108(6), 1023-

1028.

Condrasky, M., & Marsh, J. G. H. (2005). Food stamps and dietary intake of low-income

women in the rural south in the time of welfare reform. Topics in Clinical Nutrition,

20(4), 366-373.

Connell, C. L., Lofton, K. L., Yadrick, K., & Rehner, T. A. (2005). Children's

experiences of food insecurity can assist in understanding its effect on their well-

being. The Journal of Nutrition, 135(7), 1683-1690.

Cook, J. T., Frank, D. A., Berkowitz, C., Black, M. M., Casey, P. H., Cutts, D. B., et al.

(2004). Food insecurity is associated with adverse health outcomes among human

infants and toddlers. The Journal of Nutrition, 134(6), 1432-1438.

Cook, J. T., Frank, D. A., Casey, P. H., Rose-Jacobs, R., Black, M. M., Chilton, M., et al.

(2008). A brief indicator of household energy security: Associations with food

security, child health, and child development in US infants and toddlers. Pediatrics,

142

122(4), e867-e875, Retrieved June 13, 2009, from

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/122/4/e867

Cook, J. T., Frank, D. A., Levenson, S. M., Neault, N. B., Heeren, T. C., Black, M. M., et

al. (2006). Child food insecurity increases risks posed by household food insecurity

to young children's health. The Journal of Nutrition, 136(4), 1073-1076.

Crooks, D. L. (1999). Child growth and nutritional status in a high-poverty community in

eastern Kentucky. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 109(1), 129-142.

Cutts, D. B., Pheley, A. M., & Geppert, J. S. (1998). Hunger in Midwestern inner-city

young children. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 152(5), 489-493.

Dalton, S. (2006). Obesity trends. Topics in Clinical Nutrition, 21(2), 76-94.

Demerath, E., Muratova, V., Spangler, E., Li, J., Minor, V. E., & Neal, W. A. (2003).

School-based obesity screening in rural Appalachia. Preventive Medicine, 37(6 Pt

1), 553-560.

Denham, S. A., Meyer, M. G., Toborg, M. A., & Mande, M. J. (2004). Providing health

education to Appalachia populations. Holistic Nursing Practice, 18(6), 293-301.

Dixon, L. B., Winkleby, M. A., & Radimer, K. L. (2001). Dietary intakes and serum

nutrients differ between adults from food-insufficient and food-sufficient families:

Third national health and nutrition examination survey, 1988-1994. The Journal of

Nutrition, 131(4), 1232-1246.

143 Drewnowski, A., & Specter, S. E. (2004). Poverty and obesity: The role of energy density

and energy costs. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 79(1), 6-16.

Economic Research Service. (2008). Measuring rurality. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture. Retrieved March 4, 2009, from

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Rurality/

Food and Nutrition Service. (2008). Women, infants, and children. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture. Retrieved February 24, 2009, from

http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/

Foote, J. A., Murphy, S. P., Wilkens, L. R., Basiotis, P. P., & Carlson, A. (2004). Dietary

variety increases the probability of nutrient adequacy among adults. The Journal of

Nutrition, 134(7), 1779-1785.

Frongillo, E. A., Jr. (1999). Validation of measures of food insecurity and hunger. The

Journal of Nutrition, 129(2S Suppl), 506S-509S.

Frongillo, E. A., Jyoti, D. F., & Jones, S. J. (2006). Food stamp program participation is

associated with better academic learning among school children. The Journal of

Nutrition, 136(4), 1077-1080.

Fu, M. L., Cheng, L., Tu, S. H., & Pan, W. H. (2007). Association between unhealthful

eating patterns and unfavorable overall school performance in children. Journal of

the American Dietetic Association, 107(11), 1935-1943.

144 Fung, T. T., McCullough, M., van Dam, R. M., & Hu, F. B. (2007). A prospective study

of overall diet quality and risk of type 2 diabetes in women. Diabetes Care, 30(7),

1753-1757.

Gao, X., Wilde, P. E., Lichtenstein, A. H., & Tucker, K. L. (2006). Meeting adequate

intake for dietary calcium without dairy foods in adolescents aged 9 to 18 years

(national health and nutrition examination survey 2001-2002). Journal of the


Genkinger, J. M., Platz, E. A., Hoffman, S. C., Comstock, G. W., & Helzlsouer, K. J.

(2004). Fruit, vegetable, and antioxidant intake and all-cause, cancer, and

cardiovascular disease mortality in a community-dwelling population in

Washington county, Maryland. American Journal of Epidemiology, 160(12), 1223-

1233.

Gordon-Larsen, P., Adair, L. S., & Popkin, B. M. (2003). The relationship of ethnicity,

socioeconomic factors, and overweight in US adolescents. Obesity Research, 11(1),

121-129.

Graham, H., & Zidenberg-Cherr, S. (2005). California teachers perceive school gardens

as an effective nutritional tool to promote healthful eating habits. Journal of the


145 Guenther, P. M., Dodd, K. W., Reedy, J., & Krebs-Smith, S. M. (2006). Most Americans

eat much less than recommended amounts of fruits and vegetables. Journal of the


Gulliford, M. C., Nunes, C., & Rocke, B. (2006). Food insecurity, weight control

practices and body mass index in adolescents. Public Health Nutrition, 9(5), 570-

574.

Gundersen, C., Lohman, B. J., Garasky, S., Stewart, S., & Eisenmann, J. (2008). Food

security, maternal stressors, and overweight among low-income US children:

Results from the national health and nutrition examination survey (1999-2002).

Pediatrics, 122(3), e529-e540, Retrieved June 13, 2009, from

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/122/3/e529

Haas, J. S., Lee, L. B., Kaplan, C. P., Sonneborn, D., Phillips, K. A., & Liang, S. Y.

(2003). The association of race, socioeconomic status, and health insurance status

with the prevalence of overweight among children and adolescents. American

Journal of Public Health, 93(12), 2105-2110.

Haire-Joshu, D., Brownson, R. C., Nanney, M. S., Houston, C., Steger-May, K.,

Schechtman, K., et al. (2003). Improving dietary behavior in African Americans:

The parents as teachers high 5, low fat program. Preventive Medicine, 36(6), 684-

691.

146 Hamelin, A. M., Habicht, J. P., & Beaudry, M. (1999). Food insecurity: Consequences

for the household and broader social implications. The Journal of Nutrition, 129(2S

Suppl), 525S-528S.

Hanson, K. L., Sobal, J., & Frongillo, E. A. (2007). Gender and marital status clarify

associations between food insecurity and body weight. The Journal of Nutrition,

137(6), 1460-1465.

Hazen, C., Holben, D. H., Holcomb, J. P., & Struble, C. (2008). Food insecurity is

inversely associated with perceived diet quality and vegetable intake among

impoverished women in rural Appalachian Ohio [Abstract]. FASEB Journal, 22(5),

A5090.

Herman, D. R., Harrison, G. G., Afifi, A. A., & Jenks, E. (2004). The effect of the WIC

program on food security status of pregnant, first-time participants. Family

Economics & Nutrition Review, 16(1), 21-29.

Hermann, J. R., Parker, S. P., Brown, B. J., Siewe, Y. J., Denney, B. A., & Walker, S. J.

(2006). After-school gardening improves children's reported vegetable intake and

physical activity. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 38(3), 201-202.

Holben, D. H., Barnett, M., & Holcomb, J. P. (2006). Food insecurity is associated with

health status of older adults participating in the commodity supplemental food

program. Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition, 1, 89-99.

147 Holben, D. H., & American Dietetic Association (ADA). (2006). Position of the

American dietetic association: Food insecurity and hunger in the United States.

Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 106(3), 446-458.

Holben, D. H., McClincy, M. C., Holcomb, J. P., Jr, Dean, K. L., & Walker, C. E. (2004).

Food security status of households in Appalachian Ohio with children in Head

Start. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 104(2), 238-241.

Holben, D. H., & Myles, W. (2004). Food insecurity in the United States: Its effect on

our patients. American Family Physician, 69(5), 1058-1060, 1063.

Holben, D. H., & Pheley, A. M. (2006, July). Diabetes risk and obesity in food-insecure

households in rural Appalachian Ohio. Preventing Chronic Disease, 3(3), Retrieved

June 13, 2009, from http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2006/jul/pdf/05_0127.pdf

Holt, E. M., Steffen, L. M., Moran, A., Basu, S., Steinberger, J., Ross, J. A., et al. (2009).

Fruit and vegetable consumption and its relation to markers of inflammation and

oxidative stress in adolescents. Journal of the American Dietetic Association,

109(3), 414-421.

Hutson, S. P., Dorgan, K. A., Phillips, A. N., & Behringer, B. (2007). The mountains

hold things in: The use of community research review work groups to address

cancer disparities in Appalachia. Oncology Nursing Forum, 34(6), 1133-1139.

148 Irvine, A. B., Ary, D. V., Grove, D. A., & Gilfillan-Morton, L. (2004). The effectiveness

of an interactive multimedia program to influence eating habits. Health Education

Research, 19(3), 290-305.

Jones, S. J., & Frongillo, E. A. (2006). The modifying effects of food stamp program

participation on the relation between food insecurity and weight change in women.

The Journal of Nutrition, 136(4), 1091-1094.

Jones, S. J., & Frongillo, E. A. (2007). Food insecurity and subsequent weight gain in

women. Public Health Nutrition, 10(2), 145-151.

Jyoti, D. F., Frongillo, E. A., & Jones, S. J. (2005). Food insecurity affects school

children's academic performance, weight gain, and social skills. The Journal of

Nutrition, 135(12), 2831-2839.

Kaiser, L. L., & Townsend, M. S. (2005). Food insecurity among US children. Topics in

Clinical Nutrition, 20(4), 313-320.

Kendall, A., Olson, C. M., & Frongillo, E. A., Jr. (1996). Relationship of hunger and food

insecurity to food availability and consumption. Journal of the American Dietetic

Association, 96(10), 1019-1024, 1025-1026.

Kirsh, V. A., Peters, U., Mayne, S. T., Subar, A. F., Chatterjee, N., Johnson, C. C., et al.

(2007). Prospective study of fruit and vegetable intake and risk of prostate cancer.

Journal National Cancer Institute, 99(15), 1200-1209.

149 Kleinman, R. E., Murphy, J. M., Little, M., Pagano, M., Wehler, C. A., Regal, K., et al.

(1998). Hunger in children in the United States: Potential behavioral and emotional

correlates. Pediatrics, 101(1), 3-11.

Kropf, M. L., Holben, D. H., Holcomb, J. P., Jr, & Anderson, H. (2007). Food security

status and produce intake and behaviors of special supplemental nutrition program

for women, infants, and children and farmers' market nutrition program

participants. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 107(11), 1903-1908.

Kunkel, M. E., Luccia, B., & Moore, A. C. (2003). Evaluation of the South Carolina

seniors farmers' market nutrition education program. Journal of the American

Dietetic Association, 103(7), 880-883.

Lakkakula, A. P., Zanovec, M., Silverman, L., Murphy, E., & Tuuri, G. (2008). Black

children with high preferences for fruits and vegetables are at less risk of being at

risk of overweight or overweight. Journal of the American Dietetic Association,

108(11), 1912-1915.

Langevin, D. D., Kwiatkowski, C., McKay, M. G., Maillet, J. O., Touger-Decker, R.,

Smith, J. K., et al. (2007). Evaluation of diet quality and weight status of children

from a low socioeconomic urban environment supports "at risk" classification.


150 Larsson, S. C., Hakansson, N., Naslund, I., Bergkvist, L., & Wolk, A. (2006). Fruit and

vegetable consumption in relation to pancreatic cancer risk: A prospective study.

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prevention, 15(2), 301-305.

Lee, J. S., & Frongillo, E. A., Jr. (2001). Nutritional and health consequences are

associated with food insecurity among U.S. elderly persons. The Journal of

Nutrition, 131(5), 1503-1509.

Lee, J. E., Giovannucci, E., Smith-Warner, S. A., Spiegelman, D., Willett, W. C., &

Curhan, G. C. (2006). Intakes of fruits, vegetables, vitamins A, C, and E, and

carotenoids and risk of renal cell cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prevention,

15(12), 2445-2452.

Liese, A. D., Weis, K. E., Pluto, D., Smith, E., & Lawson, A. (2007). Food store types,

availability, and cost of foods in a rural environment. Journal of the American


Linneman, C., Hessler, K., Nanney, S., Steger-May, K., Huynh, A., & Haire-Joshu, D.

(2004). Parents are accurate reporters of their preschoolers' fruit and vegetable

consumption under limited conditions. Journal of Nutrition Education and

Behavior, 36(6), 305-308.

Lorson, B. A., Melgar-Quinonez, H. R., & Taylor, C. A. (2009). Correlates of fruit and

vegetable intakes in US children. Journal of the American Dietetic Association,

109(3), 474-478.

151 Luszczynska, A., Tryburcy, M., & Schwarzer, R. (2007). Improving fruit and vegetable

consumption: A self-efficacy intervention compared with a combined self-efficacy

and planning intervention. Health Education Research, 22(5), 630-638.

Lyons, A. A., Park, J., & Nelson, C. H. (2008). Food insecurity and obesity: A

comparison of self-reported and measured height and weight. American Journal of

Public Health, 98(4), 751-757.

Lyznicki, J. M., Young, D. C., Riggs, J. A., Davis, R. M., & Council on Scientific

Affairs, American Medical Association. (2001). Obesity: Assessment and

management in primary care. American Family Physician, 63(11), 2185-2196.

Martin, K. S., & Ferris, A. M. (2007). Food insecurity and gender are risk factors for

obesity. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 39(1), 31-36.

Matheson, D. M., Varady, J., Varady, A., & Killen, J. D. (2002). Household food security

and nutritional status of Hispanic children in the fifth grade. The American Journal

of Clinical Nutrition, 76(1), 210-217.

McAleese, J. D., & Rankin, L. L. (2007). Garden-based nutrition education affects fruit

and vegetable consumption in sixth-grade adolescents. Journal of the American


McCullough, M. L., Feskanich, D., Stampfer, M. J., Giovannucci, E. L., Rimm, E. B.,

Hu, F. B., et al. (2002). Diet quality and major chronic disease risk in men and

152

women: Moving toward improved dietary guidance. The American Journal of

Clinical Nutrition, 76(6), 1261-1271.

McIntyre, L., Glanville, N. T., Raine, K. D., Dayle, J. B., Anderson, B., & Battaglia, N.

(2003). Do low-income lone mothers compromise their nutrition to feed their

children? CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal, 168(6), 686-691.

McNeill, L. H., Viswanath, K., Bennett, G. G., Puleo, E., & Emmons, K. M. (2007, July).

Feasibility of using a web-based nutrition intervention among residents of

multiethnic working-class neighborhoods. Preventing Chronic Disease, 4(3), A55.

Retrieved June 13, 2009, from

http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2007/jul/06_0072.htm

Meek, J. (2005). Food security status, body mass index, and body composition of children

participating in the summer food service program from an Appalachian Ohio

county. Unpublished master's thesis, Ohio University, Athens.

Mendoza, J. A., Drewnowski, A., Cheadle, A., & Christakis, D. A. (2006). Dietary

energy density is associated with selected predictors of obesity in U.S. children.

The Journal of Nutrition, 136(5), 1318-1322.

Morris, J. L., & Zidenberg-Cherr, S. (2002). Garden-enhanced nutrition curriculum

improves fourth-grade school children's knowledge of nutrition and preferences for

some vegetables. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 102(1), 91-93.

153 Murphy, J. M., Wehler, C. A., Pagano, M. E., Little, M., Kleinman, R. E., & Jellinek, M.

S. (1998). Relationship between hunger and psychosocial functioning in low-

income American children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and

Adolescent Psychiatry, 37(2), 163-170.

Nanney, M. S., Haire-Joshu, D., Elliott, M., Hessler, K., & Brownson, R. C. (2005,

November). Evaluating changeability to improve fruit and vegetable intake among

school aged children. Nutrition Journal, 4, 34. Retrieved June 13, 2009, from

http://www.nutritionj.com/content/pdf/1475-2891-4-34.pdf

Nanney, M. S., Haire-Joshu, D., Hessler, K., & Brownson, R. C. (2004). Rationale for a

consistent "powerhouse" approach to vegetable and fruit messages. Journal of the


Nanney, M. S., Johnson, S., Elliott, M., & Haire-Joshu, D. (2007). Frequency of eating

homegrown produce is associated with higher intake among parents and their

preschool-aged children in rural Missouri. Journal of the American Dietetic

Association, 107(4), 577-584.

Nanney, M. S., Schermbeck, R., & Haire-Joshu, D. (2007). Examination of the adherence

to the "5 A day the color way" campaign among parents and their preschool

children. Journal of Cancer Education, 22(3), 177-180.

Nelson, K., Brown, M. E., & Lurie, N. (1998). Hunger in an adult patient population.

JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 279(15), 1211-1214.

154 Nelson, K., Cunningham, W., Andersen, R., Harrison, G., & Gelberg, L. (2001). Is food

insufficiency associated with health status and health care utilization among adults

with diabetes? Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16(6), 404-411.

Nord, M. (2008a). Food security in the United States: Definitions of hunger and food

security. Retrieved February 24, 2009, from

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/labels.htm

Nord, M. (2008b). Food security in the United States: History of the food security

measurement project. Retrieved February 24, 2009, from

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/history.htm

Nord, M., Andrews, M., & Carlson, S. (2008). Household food security in the United

States, 2007 (No. ERR-66). Washington, DC: Economic Research Service: U.S.

Dept. of Agriculture.

Oberholser, C. A., & Tuttle, C. R. (2004). Assessment of household food security among

food stamp recipient families in Maryland. American Journal of Public Health,

94(5), 790-795.

O'Connell, K., & Holben, D. H. (2005). The food security status of Ohio food pantry

users and its relationship to household characteristics [Abstract]. Journal of the

American Dietetic Association, 105, A-14.

155 Ohio Action for Healthy Kids. Trimble local schools: Edible schoolyard project.

Retrieved March 4, 2009, from

http://www.ohioactionforhealthykids.org/success_stories/nutrition/trimble_schooly

ard.htm

Ohio Department of Health. (2009). Athens county. Retrieved March 4, 2009, from

http://www.odh.ohio.gov/

Ohio Job and Family Services. (2009). Retrieved March 4, 2009, from

http://jfs.ohio.gov/County/cntypro/Archive06.stm

Ohio University's Voinovich School for Leadership and Public Affairs. (2008).

Appalachian Ohio. Retrieved February 24, 2009, from

http://www.firstohio.com/default.aspx

Olson, C. M. (1999). Nutrition and health outcomes associated with food insecurity and

hunger. The Journal of Nutrition, 129(2S Suppl), 521S-524S.

Olson, C. M. (2005). Food insecurity in women. Topics in Clinical Nutrition, 20(4), 321-

328.

Olson, C. M., Bove, C. F., & Miller, E. O. (2007). Growing up poor: Long-term

implications for eating patterns and body weight. Appetite, 49(1), 198-207.

156 Olson, C. M., & Strawderman, M. S. (2008). The relationship between food insecurity

and obesity in rural childbearing women. The Journal of Rural Health, 24(1), 60-

66.

Opsomer, J. D., Jensen, H. H., & Pan, S. (2003). An evaluation of the U.S. department of

agriculture food security measure with generalized linear mixed models. The


Pan, Y., & Pratt, C. A. (2008). Metabolic syndrome and its association with diet and

physical activity in US adolescents. Journal of the American Dietetic Association,

108(2), 276-286.

Pheley, A. M., Holben, D. H., Graham, A. S., & Simpson, C. (2002). Food security and

perceptions of health status: A preliminary study in rural Appalachia. The Journal

of Rural Health, 18(3), 447-454.

Pierce, J. P., Natarajan, L., Caan, B. J., Parker, B. A., Greenberg, E. R., Flatt, S. W., et al.

(2007). Influence of a diet very high in vegetables, fruit, and fiber and low in fat on

prognosis following treatment for breast cancer: The women's healthy eating and

living (WHEL) randomized trial. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical

Association, 298(3), 289-298.

Pierce, J. P., Stefanick, M. L., Flatt, S. W., Natarajan, L., Sternfeld, B., Madlensky, L., et

al. (2007). Greater survival after breast cancer in physically active women with

157

high vegetable-fruit intake regardless of obesity. Journal Clinical Oncology,

25(17), 2345-2351.

Potischman, N., Weiss, H., Swanson, C., Coates, R., Gammon, M., Malone, K., et al.

(1998). Diet during adolescence and risk of breast cancer among young women.

Journal National Cancer Institute, 90(3), 226-233.

Quandt, S. A., Arcury, T. A., Early, J., Tapia, J., & Davis, J. D. (2004). Household food

security among migrant and seasonal Latino farm workers in north Carolina. Public

Health Reports, 119(6), 568-576.

Quandt, S. A., Bell, R. A., Snively, B. M., Smith, S. L., Stafford, J. M., Wetmore, L. K.,

et al. (2005). Ethnic disparities in glycemic control among rural older adults with

type 2 diabetes. Ethnicity & Disease, 15(4), 656-663.

Radimer, K. L., Olson, C. M., & Campbell, C. C. (1990). Development of indicators to

assess hunger. The Journal of Nutrition, 120 Suppl 11, 1544-1548.

Radimer, K. L., & Radimer, K. L. (2002). Measurement of household food security in the

USA and other industrialized countries. Public Health Nutrition, 5(6A), 859-864.

Rappaport, E. B., & Robbins, J. M. (2005). Overweight in southeastern Pennsylvania

children: 2002 household health survey data. Public Health Reports, 120(5), 525-

531.

158 Reinaerts, E., de Nooijer, J., & de Vries, N. K. (2007, August). Parental versus child

reporting of fruit and vegetable consumption. The International Journal of

Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 4, 33. Retrieved June 13, 2009, from

http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/pdf/1479-5868-4-33.pdf

Riediger, N. D., Shooshtari, S., & Moghadasian, M. H. (2007). The influence of

sociodemographic factors on patterns of fruit and vegetable consumption in

Canadian adolescents. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 107(9), 1511-

1518.

Robinson-O'Brien, R., Story, M., & Heim, S. (2009). Impact of garden-based youth

nutrition intervention programs: A review. Journal of the American Dietetic

Association, 109(2), 273-280.

Rose, D. (1999). Economic determinants and dietary consequences of food insecurity in

the United States. The Journal of Nutrition, 129(2S Suppl), 517S-520S.

Rose, D., & Bodor, J. N. (2006). Household food insecurity and overweight status in

young school children: Results from the early childhood longitudinal study.

Pediatrics, 117(2), 464-473.

Rose, D., & Oliveira, V. (1997). Nutrient intakes of individuals from food-insufficient

households in the united states. American Journal of Public Health, 87(12), 1956-

1961.

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

among participants in the US food stamp program. Public Health Nutrition, 7(8),

1081-1088.

Saksvig, B. I., Gittelsohn, J., Harris, S. B., Hanley, A. J., Valente, T. W., & Zinman, B.

(2005). A pilot school-based healthy eating and physical activity intervention

improves diet, food knowledge, and self-efficacy for native Canadian children. The


Seligman, H. K., Bindman, A. B., Vittinghoff, E., Kanaya, A. M., & Kushel, M. B.

(2007, April 14). Food insecurity is associated with diabetes mellitus: Results from

the national health examination and nutrition examination survey (NHANES) 1999-

2002. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22(7), 1018-1023, Retrieved June 13,

2009, from http://www.springerlink.com/content/k261186v28w51526/

Siefert, K., Heflin, C. M., Corcoran, M. E., & Williams, D. R. (2001). Food insufficiency

and the physical and mental health of low-income women. Women & Health, 32(1-

2), 159-177.

Skalicky, A., Meyers, A. F., Adams, W. G., Yang, Z., Cook, J. T., & Frank, D. A. (2006).

Child food insecurity and iron-deficiency anemia in low-income infants and

toddlers in the united states. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 5,64-69.

Smith, D., & Grant, W. (2008). Appalachian Regional Commission. Retrieved October

27, 2008, from www.arc.gov

160 Stables, G. J., Young, E. M., Howerton, M. W., Yaroch, A. L., Kuester, S., Solera, M. K.,

et al. (2005). Small school-based effectiveness trials increase vegetable and fruit

consumption among youth. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 105(2),

252-256.

Stewart, H., & Blisard, N. (2008). Are lower income households willing and able to

budget for fruits and vegetables? (No. 54). Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of

Agriculture.

Struble, C., Holben, D. H., Hazen, C., & Holcomb, J. P. (2008). Adult food insecurity is

associated with poorer perceived health of rural impoverished women participating

in a produce pilot study in Appalachian Ohio [Abstract]. Journal of the American

Dietetic Association, 108(9), A108.

Stuff, J. E., Casey, P. H., Szeto, K. L., Gossett, J. M., Robbins, J. M., Simpson, P. M., et

al. (2004). Household food insecurity is associated with adult health status. The


Swindale, A., & Bilinsky, P. (2006). Development of a universally applicable household

food insecurity measurement tool: Process, current status, and outstanding issues.

The Journal of Nutrition, 136(5), 1449S-1452S.

Tanumihardjo, S. A., Anderson, C., Kaufer-Horwitz, M., Bode, L., Emenaker, N. J.,

Haqq, A. M., et al. (2007). Poverty, obesity, and malnutrition: An international

161

perspective recognizing the paradox. Journal of the American Dietetic Association,

107(11), 1966-1972.

Tarasuk, V. S., & Beaton, G. H. (1999). Women's dietary intakes in the context of

household food insecurity. The Journal of Nutrition, 129(3), 672-679.

Tessaro, I., Mangone, C., Parkar, I., & Pawar, V. (2006). Knowledge, barriers, and

predictors of colorectal cancer screening in an Appalachian church population.

Preventing Chronic Disease, 3(4), 123-134.

Townsend, M. S., & Kaiser, L. L. (2005). Development of a tool to assess psychosocial

indicators of fruit and vegetable intake for 2 federal programs. Journal of Nutrition

Education & Behavior, 37(4), 170-184.

Townsend, M. S., & Kaiser, L. L. (2007). Brief psychosocial fruit and vegetable tool is

sensitive for the US Department of Agriculture’s nutrition education programs.


Townsend, M. S., Peerson, J., Love, B., Achterberg, C., & Murphy, S. P. (2001). Food

insecurity is positively related to overweight in women. The Journal of Nutrition,

131(6), 1738-1745.

Trevino, R. P., Fogt, D. L., Wyatt, T. J., Leal-Vasquez, L., Sosa, E., & Woods, C. (2008).

Diabetes risk, low fitness, and energy insufficiency levels among children from

poor families. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 108(11), 1846-1853.

162 Tulkki, L. A., Berryman, D. E., Rana, S., Denham, S. A., Holben, D. H., & Nisbett, N.

(2006). Elevated body image dissatisfaction relates to body size of Appalachian

children. Topics in Clinical Nutrition, 21(2), 101-107.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). Current population survey (CPS). Retrieved March 4, 2009,

from http://www.census.gov/cps/

U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). Athens County, Ohio. Retrieved March 4, 2009, from

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/39/39009.html

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2008). Summer food service program.

Retrieved February 24, 2009, from http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/summer/

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2009a). School breakfast program.

Retrieved February 24, 2009, from

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Breakfast/Default.htm

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2009b). School meals. Retrieved

February 24, 2009, from http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2009c). Supplemental nutrition

assistance program (SNAP). Retrieved February 24, 2009, from

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/

163 Van Duyn, M. A., & Pivonka, E. (2000). Overview of the health benefits of fruit and

vegetable consumption for the dietetics professional: Selected literature. Journal of

the American Dietetic Association, 100(12), 1511-1521.

Van Horn, L., Obarzanek, E., Friedman, L. A., Gernhofer, N., & Barton, B. (2005).

Children's adaptations to a fat-reduced diet: The dietary intervention study in

children (DISC). Pediatrics, 115(6), 1723-1733.

Vozoris, N. T., & Tarasuk, V. S. (2003). Household food insufficiency is associated with

poorer health. The Journal of Nutrition, 133(1), 120-126.

Walker, J. L., Holben, D. H., Kropf, M. L., Holcomb, J. P., Jr, & Anderson, H. (2007).

Household food insecurity is inversely associated with social capital and health in

females from special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and

children households in Appalachian Ohio. Journal of the American Dietetic

Association, 107(11), 1989-1993.

Ware, J. E., Jr, & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey

(SF-36). I. conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30(6), 473-

483.

Webb, A. L., Schiff, A., Currivan, D., & Villamor, E. (2008). Food stamp program

participation but not food insecurity is associated with higher adult BMI in

Massachusetts residents living in low-income neighborhoods. Public Health

Nutrition, 11(12), 1248-1255.

164 Weinreb, L., Wehler, C., Perloff, J., Scott, R., Hosmer, D., Sagor, L., et al. (2002).

Hunger: Its impact on children's health and mental health. Pediatrics, 110(4), 41-

52.

Wewers, M. E., Katz, M., Fickle, D., & Paskett, E. D. (2006). Risky behaviors among

Ohio Appalachian adults. Preventing Chronic Disease, 3(4), 127-135.

Whitaker, R. C., & Sarin, A. (2007). Change in food security status and change in weight

are not associated in urban women with preschool children. The Journal of

Nutrition, 137(9), 2134-2139.

Wilde, P. E., & Peterman, J. N. (2006). Individual weight change is associated with

household food security status. The Journal of Nutrition, 136(5), 1395-1400.

Zerbian, C. (2007). Community food initiatives. Retrieved February 24, 2009, from

http://www.communityfoodinitiatives.com/index.html

Zhang, Z., Infante, A., Meit, M., & English, N. (2008). An analysis of mental health and

substance abuse disparities & access to treatment services in the Appalachian

region. Washington, DC: Appalachian Regional Commission.

165 APPENDIX A: FOOD SECURITY SURVEY MODULE SCORING FOOD SECURITY

SURVEY MODULE 18 AND 6 ITEM SCORING

The following is a brief overview of how to code responses and assess household

food security status in 2008 for the current categories based on various standard scales.

For detailed information on these procedures, refer to the Guide to Measuring Household

Food Security, Revised 2000, and Measuring Children’s Food Security in U.S.

Households, 1995-1999. Both publications are available through the ERS Food Security

in the United States Briefing Room.

Responses of “yes,” “often,” “sometimes,” “almost every month,” and “some months

but not every month” are coded as affirmative. The sum of affirmative responses to a

specified set of items is referred to as the household’s raw score on the scale comprising

those items.


Q1 “We worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy more.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

Q2 “The food that we bought just didn’t last and we didn’t have money to get more.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

Q3 “We couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

Q4 In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in the household ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

166 Q5 (If yes to Question 4) How often did this happen—almost every

month, some months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?

Q6 In the last 12 months, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

Q7 In the last 12 months, were you ever hungry, but didn’t eat, because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

Q8 In the last 12 months, did you lose weight because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

Q9 In the last 12 months did you or other adults in your household ever not eat for a whole day because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)


Questions 11-18 are asked only if the household included children ages 0-18

Q11 “We relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed our children because we were running out of money to buy food.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

Q12 “We couldn’t feed our children a balanced meal, because we couldn’t afford that.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

Q13 “The children were not eating enough because we just couldn’t afford enough food.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

Q14 In the last 12 months, did you ever cut the size of any of the children’s meals because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

Q15 In the last 12 months, were the children ever hungry but you just couldn’t afford more food? (Yes/No)

Q16 In the last 12 months, did any of the children ever skip a meal because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

167 Q17 (If yes to Question 16) How often did this happen—almost every

month, some months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?

Q18 In the last 12 months, did any of the children ever not eat for a whole day because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

Note. Adapted from “Guide to Measuring Household Food Security, Revised 2000”, by G. Bickel, 2000, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, p.22. Copyright 2000 by the USDA. Reprinted with permission.

• Specification of food security status depends on raw score and whether there are

children in the household (i.e., whether responses to child-referenced questions are

included in the raw score).

o For households with one or more children:

Raw score zero—High food security

Raw score 1-2—Marginal food security

Raw score 3-7—Low food security

Raw score 8-18—Very low food security

o For households with no child present:

Raw score zero—High food security

Raw score 1-2—Marginal food security



Households with high or marginal food security are classified as food-secure.

Those with low or very low food security are classified as food-insecure.

• Questions 2 through 10 comprise the U.S. Adult Food Security Scale.

Raw score zero—High food security among adults

168

Raw score 1-2—Marginal food security among adults

Raw score 3-5—Low food security among adults

Raw score 6-10—Very low food security among adults

• Questions 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 10 comprise the six-item Short Module from which the

Six-Item Food Security Scale can be calculated.

Raw score 0-1—High or marginal food security (raw score 1 may be

considered marginal food security, but a large proportion of

households that would be measured as having marginal food security

using the household or adult scale will have raw score zero on the six-

item scale)



Questions 11 through 18 comprise the U.S. Children’s Food Security Scale.

Raw score 0-1—High or marginal food security among children (raw

score 1 may be considered marginal food security, but it is not certain

that all households with raw score zero have high food security among

children because the scale does not include an assessment of the

anxiety component of food insecurity)

Raw score 2-4—Low food security among children

Raw score 5-8—Very low food security among children

(2) Response Options: For interviewer-administered surveys, DK (“do not know”) and

“Refused” are blind responses—that is, they are not presented as response options, but

169 marked if volunteered. For self-administered surveys, “do not know” is presented as a

response option.

(3) Screening: The two levels of screening for adult-referenced questions and one level

for child-referenced questions are provided for surveys in which it is considered

important to reduce respondent burden. In pilot surveys intended to validate the module

in a new cultural, linguistic, or survey context, screening should be avoided if possible

and all questions should be administered to all respondents.

To further reduce burden for higher income respondents, a preliminary screener

may be constructed using question 1 along with a household income measure.

Households with income above twice the poverty threshold, AND who respond <1> to

question 1 may be skipped to the end of the module and classified as food-secure. Use of

this preliminary screener reduces total burden in a survey with many higher-income

households, and the cost, in terms of accuracy in identifying food-insecure households, is

not great. However, research has shown that a small proportion of the higher income

households screened out by this procedure will register food insecurity if administered

the full module. If question 1 is not needed for research purposes, a preferred strategy is

to omit 1 and administer Adult Stage 1 of the module to all households and Child Stage 1

of the module to all households with children.

170

APPENDIX B: KIDS ON CAMPUS SURVEY SCORING


The first four questions are in relation to the family’s food intake

Q5 In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in your household, ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there wasn’t enough money for food?

Q8 (Ask only if Yes to Q5) How often did this happen- almost every month, some months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?

Q7 In the last 12 months, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn’t enough money to buy food?

Q10 In the last 12 months, were you ever hungry but didn’t eat because you couldn’t afford enough food?

The last two questions are in relation to the family’s food situation

Q2 “The food that I/we bought just didn’t last and I/we didn’t have money to get more.” Was that often, sometimes, or never trough for you in the last 12 months?

Q3 “I/we couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

Note. Adapted from “The Effectiveness of a Short Form of the Household Food Security Scale,” by S. Blumberg, 1999, American Journal of Public Health, 89; 1231-1234. Copyright 1999 by the USDA. Adapted with permission. • Questions 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 10 comprise the six-item Short Module from which the

Six-Item Food Security Scale can be calculated.

Raw score 0-1—High or marginal food security (raw score 1 may be

considered marginal food security, but a large proportion of

households that would be measured as having marginal food security

171

using the household or adult scale will have raw score zero on the six-

item scale)



(Bickel et al., 2000)

Constructs/Domain Number of Items Points (Min, Max)

Predisposing:

Perceived benefits for eating fruits and vegetables

• I feel that I am helping my body by eating more fruits and vegetables

• I may develop health problems if I do not eat fruits and vegetables

4 0-2

Agree = 1

Either agree or disagree = 0.5

Disagree = 0

Perceived control for eating fruits and vegetables

• In your household, who is in charge of what foods to buy?

• In your household, who is in charge of how to prepare the food?

Other = 0

Shared decision = 0.5

I am = 1

Enabling:

Self-efficacy for eating fruits and vegetables

• I feel that I can plan meals or snacks with more fruit during the next week.

• I feel that I can buy more vegetables the next time I shop.

• I feel that I can plan meals with

Agree = 1

Either agree or disagree = 0.5

Disagree = 0

172

more vegetables during the next week.

• I feel that I can eat fruits or vegetables as snacks.

• I feel that I can add extra vegetables to casseroles and stews.

• I feel that I can eat 2 or more servings of vegetables at dinner.

Intention:

Readiness to eat more fruit

• I am not thinking about eating more fruit. (pre-contemplation)

• I am planning to start within 6 months. (contemplation)

• I am definitely planning to eat more fruit in the next month. (preparation)

• I am trying to eat more fruit now. (action)

• I am already eating 2 or more servings of fruit a day. (maintenance)

3 0-3

Readiness to eat more vegetables

• I am not thinking about eating more vegetables.(pre-contemplation)

• I am planning to start within 6 months. (contemplation)

• I am definitely planning to eat more vegetables in the next month. (preparation)

• I am trying to eat more vegetables now. (action)

• I am already eating 2 or more servings of vegetables a day. (maintenance)

Perceived diet quality Excellent = 5

173

• How would you describe your diet?

Very good = 4

Good = 3

Fair = 2

Poor = 1

TOTAL SCALE (6 pts) 13 0-6

Note. From “Development of a tool to assess psychosocial indicators of fruit and vegetable intake for 2 federal programs,” by M. Townsend, 2005, Journal of Nutrition Educational Behavior, (4) 37; 170-184. Copyright 2005 by Townsend and Kaiser. Reprinted with permission.

Question Scoring

I am not thinking about gardening to grow vegetables for my household

Affirmative = pre-contemplation

I am thinking about gardening to grow vegetables for my household, planning to start within six months

Affirmative = contemplation

I am definitely planning to garden to grow vegetables for my household in the next month

Affirmative = preparation

I am trying to garden to grow vegetables for my household

Affirmative = action

I am already gardening to grow vegetables for my household

Affirmative = maintenance

I am not thinking about gardening to grow fruit for my household

Affirmative = pre-contemplation

I am thinking about gardening to grow fruit for my household, planning to start within six months

Affirmative = contemplation

I am definitely planning to garden to grow fruit for my household in the next month

Affirmative = preparation

174 I am trying to garden to grow fruit for my household

Affirmative = action

I am already gardening to grow fruit for my household

Affirmative = maintenance

175

APPENDIX C: IRB APPROVAL

176

APPENDIX D: KIDS ON CAMPUS SURVEY

THIS SURVEY IS FOR THE MOTHER OR PRIMARY CARETAKER OF THE CHILDREN IN KIDS ON CAMPUS. My name is:

My child/children participating in Kids on Campus Grades 1 – 4 are:

Child 1

Child 2

Child 3

Child 4

If you decide to complete this survey, this sheet will be detached. It is attached so that

we can give you an identification number for the survey.

Office Use Only – Subject Number:

177 Kids on Campus Food and Nutrition Survey

Completion and return of this survey is completely voluntary and implies your

consent to use this information for research purposes. No one will be able to

identify you in any report resulting from this survey.

This survey should be completed by the mother or primary female caretaker of the

child/children participating in Kids on Campus. The survey will take about 15 minutes to

complete. The purpose of this survey is to ask about your food habits and your

satisfaction with the food and gardening aspects of the Kids on Campus program this

summer. With this information, we are hoping to learn how to better serve you and other

families in Kids on Campus. In no way will your answers affect your child’s/children’s

participation in Kids on Campus. Please complete and return the survey with your Kids

on Campus materials. Thank you very much for your time and assistance.

*If you have questions about this survey please contact:

David H. Holben, PhD, RD, LD/ Ashley Zurmehly

School of Human and Consumer Sciences

W324 Grover Center

Athens, Ohio 45701

740-593-2875

*If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please

contact:

Ellen Sherow

Director of Research Compliance

Ohio University

740-593-0664

178 Please write in or circle your answer to each.

How old are you? ________

What is your race? (circle all that apply)

American

Indian or

Native

Alaskan

Asian

African-

American or

African

American

Hispanic

Native

Hawaiian or

Other

Pacific

Islander

White

Other (Please specify.)

What is your current marital status? (circle one answer)

Married Widowed Divorced Separated Single/Never

Married

If not married, do you have a live-in partner? Yes No

Including you, how many people live in your household?

179

Including the incomes of the other members of your household, what is your pre-tax

average monthly household income including child support (not including SNAP that you

may receive)?

$______________________

What is your highest level of education completed?

(check one box only)

Less than High School

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE – high school DIPLOMA or the equivalent (GED)

Some College or Higher

The rest of this survey deals with various aspects of your health. By health, we

mean not only the absence of disease or injury but also physical, mental, and social

well-being. (check one box)

These questions are about your weight and height.

How tall are you (inches)?

How much do you weigh (pounds)?

BMI (Do not complete this box - office use

only)

The following questions are about your health.

Yes No

180

The following are questions about your general well-being.

In general my health is _____.

(circle one answer)

Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor

The following two questions are about activities you might do during a typical day.

Does your health now limit you in these activities? If so, how much?

(circle one answer for each)

Moderate

activities

such as moving a

table, pushing a

vacuum cleaner,

bowling, or

playing golf:

Yes, Limited A Lot Yes, Limited A

Little

No, Not Limited At

All

Have you lost or gained 10 lbs. in the past 6 months without wanting to?

Are you now drinking or have you ever drunk alcohol?

Do you have vision problems that cannot be corrected by glasses?

Do you consider yourself overweight?

Have you ever been told that you are at risk for diabetes?

Have you been told by your doctor that you have diabetes?

When you cut yourself, does it take longer to heal?

Are you aware of any family members with diabetes?

Are you aware of any family members at risk for diabetes?

Do you have a dark ring or darkened skin around your neck?

181 Climbing several

flights of stairs:

Yes, Limited A Lot Yes, Limited A

Little

No, Not Limited At

All

During the past 4 weeks have you had any of the following problems with your work

or other regular activities as a result of your physical health?


Accomplished less than

you would like:

Yes No

Were limited in the kind of

work or other activities:

Yes No

During the past 4 weeks, were you limited in the kind of work you do or other

regular activities as a result of any emotional problems (such as feeling depressed or

anxious)?


Accomplished less than

you would like:

Yes No

Didn’t do work or other

activities as carefully as

usual:

Yes No

During the past 4 weeks, how much did pain interfere with your normal work

(including both work outside the home and housework)?

(circle one answer)

Not At All A Little Bit Moderately Quite A Bit Extremely

The next three questions are about how you feel and how things have been during

182 the past 4 weeks. For each question, please give the one answer that comes closest to

the way you have been feeling. How much of the time during the past 4 weeks:


Have you felt

calm and

peaceful?

All of the

Time

Most of

the Time

A Good

Bit of the

Time

Some of

the Time

A Little

of the

Time

None of

the Time

Did you have

a lot of

energy?

All of the

Time

Most of

the Time

A Good

Bit of the

Time

Some of

the Time

A Little

of the

Time

None of

the Time

Have you felt

downhearted

and blue?

All of the

Time

Most of

the Time

A Good

Bit of the

Time

Some of

the Time

A Little

of the

Time

None of

the Time

During the past 4 weeks, how much has your physical health or emotional problems

interfered with your social activities (like visiting friends, relatives, etc.)?

(circle one answer)

All of the time

Most of the

time

Some of the

time

A little of the

time

None of the

time

The following questions are about the food situation for your household in the

past 12 months.

During the past 12 months, the food that you (and others) bought just didn’t last and there

wasn’t any money to get more. (circle one answer)

Often True Sometimes True Never True

183

During the past 12 months, you (and others) couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals.

(circle one answer)

Often True Sometimes True Never True

The following questions are about the food situation in the past 12 months for you

or any other adults in your household.

During the past 12 months, did you or other adults in your household ever cut the size of

your meals or skip meals because there wasn’t enough money for food?

(circle one answer)

Yes. Almost every

month.

Yes. Some months

but not every month.

Yes. Only one or two

months. No

During the past 12 months, did you

(personally) ever eat less than you felt you

should because there wasn’t enough money

to buy food? (circle one answer)

Yes

No

During the past 12 months, were you

(personally) ever hungry but didn’t eat

because you couldn’t afford enough food?

(circle one answer)

Yes

No

Please answer the following questions about you and your household.

(Circle one answer in each row.)

Do you have reliable transportation to get food? Yes

No

184

Do you or someone in your household hunt during the

year for food?

Yes

No

Do you or someone in your household fish during the

year for food?

Yes

No

Please answer the following questions about food program participation.

(Circle one answer in each row.)

In the past 12 months, did (you/anyone in your

household) get SNAP benefits that is, either SNAP or a

SNAP benefit card?

Yes

No

During the past 12 months, did (your child/any

children in the household between 5 and 18 years old)

receive free or reduced-cost lunches at school?

Yes

No


children in the household) receive free or reduced-cost

breakfasts at school?

Yes

No


children in the household) receive free or reduced-cost

food at a day-care or Head Start program?

Yes

No


household) receive benefits from the WIC program?

Yes

No


household) receive benefits from the WIC Farmers

Market Nutrition Program?

Yes

No


household) receive benefits from the Senior Farmers

Market Nutrition Program?

Yes

No

185

In the last 12 months, did (you/you or other adults in

your household) ever get food from a church, a food

pantry, or food bank?

Yes

No

Please answer the following about fruits and vegetables:

(Circle one in each row.)

I feel that I am helping my body by

eating more fruits and vegetables.

Agree

(Yes)

Agree or

Disagree

(Maybe)

Disagree

(No)

I may develop health problems if I do

not eat fruit and vegetables.

Agree

(Yes)

Agree or

Disagree

(Maybe)

Disagree

(No)

I feel that I can eat fruit or vegetables

as snacks.

Agree

(Yes)

Agree or

Disagree

(Maybe)

Disagree

(No)

I feel that I can buy more vegetables

the next time I shop.

Agree

(Yes)

Agree or

Disagree

(Maybe)

Disagree

(No)

I feel that I can plan meals or snack

with more fruit during the next week.

Agree

(Yes)

Agree or

Disagree

(Maybe)

Disagree

(No)

I feel that I can eat two or more

servings of vegetables at dinner. Agree

(Yes)

Agree or

Disagree

(Maybe)

Disagree

(No)

I feel that I can plan meals with more

vegetables during the next week.

Agree

(Yes)

Agree or

Disagree

(Maybe)

Disagree

(No)

186 I feel that I can add extra vegetables to

casseroles and stews.

Agree

(Yes)

Agree or

Disagree

(Maybe)

Disagree

(No)

In your household who is in charge of

what foods to buy? I Am

Shared

Decision Other Person

In your household who is in charge of

how to prepare the food?

I Am

Shared

Decision

Other Person

How would you best describe your diet? (Circle one only.)

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Choose the one best statement that fits you. (Check one box only.)

I am not thinking about eating more fruit.

I am thinking about eating more fruit…planning to start within six

months.

I am definitely planning to eat more fruit in the next month.

I am trying to eat more fruit now.

I am already eating 3 or more servings of fruit a day.


I am not thinking about eating more vegetables.

187 I am thinking about eating more vegetables…planning to start within

six months.

I am definitely planning to eat more vegetables in the next month.

I am trying to eat more vegetables now.

I am already eating 3 or more servings of vegetables a day.

Do you eat more than one kind of fruit daily? (Circle only one.)

Never

Sometimes

Often

Always

Do you eat more than 1 kind of vegetable in a day? (Circle only one.)

Never

Sometimes

Often

Always

During the past week, did you have citrus fruit (such as orange or grapefruit) or

citrus juice? (Circle one.)

Yes

No

How many servings of vegetables do you eat each day?

Number___________

188

Do you eat 2 or more servings of vegetables at your main meal? (Circle one.)

Sometimes

Often

Always

Never

Do you eat fruit or vegetables as snacks? (Circle one.)

Yes

No

How many servings of fruit do you eat each day?

Number___________


I am not thinking about gardening to grow vegetables for my

household.

I am thinking about gardening to grow vegetables for my household.

…planning to start within six months.

I am definitely planning to garden to grow vegetables for my household

in the next month.

I am trying to garden to grow vegetables for my household. .

I am already gardening to grow vegetables for my household.


189 I am not thinking about gardening to grow fruit for my household.

I am thinking about gardening to grow fruit for my household.

…planning to start within six months.

I am definitely planning to garden to grow fruit for my household in

the next month.

I am trying to garden to grow fruit for my household. .

I am already gardening to grow fruit for my household.

The following questions are about your child/children.

How would you best describe your child’s diet? (Circle one only.)

Child

1 Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Child

2 Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Child

3 Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Child

4 Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

190

How many servings of vegetables

does your child eat each day?

How many servings of fruit does

your child eat each day?

Child

1

Child

2

Child

3

Child

4

Does your child eat

more than one kind of

fruit daily?

(Circle only one for each

child.)

Does your child eat

more than 1 kind of

vegetable in a day?

(Circle only one for each

child.)

Does your child eat 2 or

more servings of

vegetables at their main

meal? (Circle only one

for each child.)

Child

1

Never

Sometimes

Often

Always

Never

Sometimes

Often

Always

Never

Sometimes

Often

Always

Child

2

Never

Sometimes

Often

Always

Never

Sometimes

Often

Always

Never

Sometimes

Often

Always

Child

3

Never

Sometimes

Often

Always

Never

Sometimes

Often

Always

Never

Sometimes

Often

Always

191

Child

4

Never

Sometimes

Often

Always

Never

Sometimes

Often

Always

Never

Sometimes

Often

Always

During the past week, did your child have citrus fruit (such as orange or grapefruit)

or citrus juice? (Circle one for each child.)

Child 1 Yes

No

Child 2 Yes

No

Child 3 Yes

No

Child 4 Yes

No

Does your child eat fruit or vegetables as snacks? (Circle one for each child.)

Child 1 Yes

No

Child 2 Yes

No

Child 3 Yes

No

Child 4 Yes

No

My child is interested

in eating 3 or more

servings of fruit each

day. (Circle only one for


in eating 3 or more

servings of vegetables

each day. (Circle only


in gardening

vegetables. (Circle only

one for each child.)

192

each child.) one for each child.)

Child

1

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Child

2

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Child

3

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Child

4

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

193

APPENDIX E: KIDS ON CAMPUS LESSON PLANS BIG TOP GARDEN 2008

WEEK 1: GARDENING IS GREAT

Ohio Standards Connections: English Language Arts 1) Acquisition of Vocabulary

a) Know the meaning of specialized vocabulary by applying knowledge of word parts, relationship and meanings i) Classify words into categories(e.g., colors, fruits, vegetables)

2) Reading Applications: Informational, Technical and Persuasive Text Standard a) Use visual aids as sources to gain additional information from text

i) Identify information in diagrams, charts, graphs, and maps Mathematics 1) Measurement Standard

a) Develop common referents for units of measure for length, weight, volume and time to make comparisons and estimates i) Order a sequence of events with respect to time

2) Patterns, Functions and Algebra Standard a) Sort, classify and order objects by size, number and other properties, and describe

the attributes used i) Sort, classify and order objects by two or more attributes, such as color and

shape and explain how objects were sorted Science 1) Life Sciences Standard

a) Discover that there are living things, non-living things and pretend things, and describe the basic needs of living things (organisms)

Explore that organisms, including people, have basic needs which include air, water, food, living space and shelter

Lesson Summary: Students in grades 1-4 attending the Kids on Campus 2008 Gardening Program: Big Top Garden, will participate in weekly sessions. During Week One:

1) Children will participate in the multiple stages of planting different types of seeds.

2) Students will be able to discuss the stages of plant growth and what the importance of each stage is.

3) Students will have the opportunity to determine what fruits and vegetables they enjoy, what types they eat on a

194

regular basis, and what types they should try.

Estimated Duration:

Students will participate in the Kids on Campus 2008 Gardening Program over a 6 week period, attending a weekly session.

The one hour weekly session is broken into 4 blocks of time:

1) Introduction (5 minutes) 2) Message (20 minutes) 3) Pre-assignment (20 minutes) 4) Activity (15 minutes)

“Fit-tip” message of the week: Gardening can keep me fit while I grow food with my family!

Pre-Assessment:

Students engage in a discussion about the objectives of the program and how it aligns with the broader Kids on Campus Circus Fit theme. Students complete a checklist of the foods they have eaten in the past week and identify those they prefer.

Scoring Guidelines: The teacher uses the fruit and vegetable checklist completed by each student to identify ability to identify types of fruit and vegetable and vocabulary.

Post-Assessment:

The teacher uses the observational data and work samples of students to note their use of vocabulary, sorting of seed into groups and sequencing the stages of plant growth.

195 Instructional Procedures:

Introduction (5 minutes)- • Introduce instructors and helpers as well as explain how the Big Top

Garden fit in with the Kids on Campus Circus Fit theme. Message (20 minutes)-

• Gardening is great! Handouts are given to children and read aloud by group after reading fit-tip message together.

• Plant stages of growth are explained and the group discusses why each stage was important for the plant.

Folder assignment (20 minutes)- • Each child is given a folder with their group name on top that they are to

write their name on and keep handouts in for the duration of the program. • In the folder for this week are the fruit and vegetable check lists children

fill out by marking a check in the box if they’ve eaten the food in the past week and circling the food if they like it.

Activity: Planting of seeds (15 minutes)-

• Children are divided up into 5 groups: o 2 soil groups o 2 seed groups o 1 watering group

• The soil groups are in charge of filling the two containers (one EarthBox and one small container) full of soil.

• The seed groups are randomly given one of three seed types: radish, lettuce mix, or an herb which they are instructed to place in the soil.

• The water group then waters the top of the soil that has just been planted. • All groups then return inside to wash their hands and gather their bags to

move to the next KOC activity making sure to take their Gardening is great handouts home with them.

Differentiated Instructional Support Material will be presented in written and visual forms to accommodate emergent readers. Instructions will be given verbally and in pictorial form to accommodate variations in learning styles, strengths, and ability levels. Equipment and concrete materials will be made accessible to all students to facilitate autonomy and promote success for each child. Extension Students are encouraged to communicate their experiences with family and engage the family unit in continuation of the project beyond the scope of the Kids on Campus Program. Materials are provided to promote communication with family in a reciprocal manner, with the student incorporating their knowledge of food and nutrition in their personal and classroom experience.

196 Homework Options and Home Connections

Students are provided materials and products introduced in the Big Top Garden program with the objective they will be incorporated into the student’s diet and food choice knowledge.

Interdisciplinary Connections

The content of the weekly session promote scientific understanding in making connections between the life sciences, collecting observational data, conducting simple experiments, and gaining knowledge of health and nutrition. Integrated within this study is opportunity for students to write, discuss, classify, measure, compare, contrast, collaborate, cooperate, and problem solve.

Materials and Resources:

For teachers • copies of all handout materials • seeds • soil • watering can • Earthbox and additional containers • collection bags • checklists of vegetables • folders • pencils • visuals for plant growth stages • visual for planting seed process

Key Vocabulary

• fruit • vegetable • radish • lettuce • herb • soil • plant • seed • seedling

198

WEEK 2: GARDENING IS COLORFUL


a) Know the meaning of specialized vocabulary by applying knowledge of word parts, relationship and meanings i) Classify words into categories(e.g., colors, fruits, vegetables)

4) Reading Applications: Informational, Technical and Persuasive Text Standard a) Use visual aids as sources to gain additional information from text

i) Identify information in diagrams, charts, graphs, and maps Mathematics 3) Measurement Standard

a) Develop common referents for units of measure for length, weight, volume and time to make comparisons and estimates i) Order a sequence of events with respect to time

4) Patterns, Functions and Algebra Standard a) Sort, classify and order objects by size, number and other properties, and describe

the attributes used i) Recognize and explain how objects can be classified in more than one way ii) Identify what attribute was used to sort groups of objects that have already

been sorted Science 2) Life Sciences Standard

a) Discover that there are living things, non-living things and pretend things, and describe the basic needs of living things (organisms) i) Explore that organisms, including people, have basic needs which include air,

water, food, living space and shelter b) Explain how organisms function and interact with their physical environments

i) Compare Ohio plants by describing changes in their appearance over time Social Studies 1) Social Studies Skills and Methods Standard

a) Obtain information from oral, visual, print and electronic sources i) Obtain information about a topic using a variety of oral and visual sources

199

Lesson Summary: Students in grades 1-4 attending the Kids on Campus 2008 Gardening Program: Big Top Garden, participate in weekly sessions. During Week Two:

1) Children will observe the stages of plant growth through the garden.

2) Children will study the Food Guide Pyramid, through discussion, handouts, and an activity, focusing on:

a) how it is made up into groups b) what those groups mean c) how they can use it to eat healthy

Estimated Duration:

Students will participate in the Kids on Campus 2008 Gardening Program over a 6 week period, attending a weekly session.


1) Gardening Observation (15 minutes) 2) Message (20 minutes) 3) Activity (25 minutes)

“Fit-tip” message of the week: MyPyramid can help me choose a variety of foods for healthy living!

Pre-Assessment:

Students will engage in a discussion about the structure of the food pyramid and its contents, the focus being on identification of the groups and their content. The teacher will collect observational data to assess children’s understanding of the manner in which groups are formed, similarities and differences within each group.

Scoring Guidelines: Students’ ability to identify common feature of foods in various categories will serve as an assessment tool for directing the discussion and exploration.

200 Post-Assessment:

The teacher uses the observational data and work samples of students to note their use of vocabulary, ability to place various foods into proper groups on food pyramid and identifying changes in their plants’ growth.

Instructional Procedures:

Gardening observation (15 minutes)-

• Children are able to go out to the pool deck and observe the changes in their garden through drawings.

Message (20 minutes)-

• Gardening is colorful! Handouts are distributed through their folders and the fit-tip is read aloud as a group.

• A brief explanation of the food pyramid is given including its purpose and examples of each food groups’ contents and their role in keeping us healthy.

• Children are then shown a poster of the food guide pyramid to explain how different groups have different portion sizes recommended and the group discusses what groups the foods we are growing would be in.

Activity: Food Pyramid Challenge (25 minutes)-

• Different color papers are handed out to the children in colors representing the pyramid colors in order to represent what group the child will be in:

o Orange= grains (6 children) o Green= vegetables (5 children) o Red= fruits (4 children) o Blue= milk (3 children) o Purple= meat/beans (2 children) o Yellow= oils (1 child)

• The number of children in each group is meant to represent the average number of servings they should have from each group per day so they can see the difference between the groups visually.

• When the children have assembled outside in their groups food models will be presented one at a time and the groups have to decide what food group it belongs to. Once it has been correctly identified the group gets to collect their food. Try to have a variety of foods represented so that every child can hold a model.

201

• After all the models have been distributed the children should return them to the instructor and collect their Gardening is colorful and other handouts to take home.

Differentiated Instructional Support Material will be presented in written and visual forms to accommodate emergent readers. Instructions will be given verbally and in pictorial form to accommodate variations in learning styles, strengths, and ability levels. Equipment and concrete materials will be made accessible to all students to facilitate autonomy and promote success for each child. Extension Students are encouraged to communicate their experiences with family and engage the family unit in continuation of the project beyond the scope of the Kids on Campus Program. Materials are provided to promote communication with family in a reciprocal manner, with the student incorporating their knowledge of food and nutrition in their personal and classroom experience. Homework Options and Home Connections Students are provided materials and products introduced in the Big Top Garden program with the objective they will be incorporated into the student’s diet and food choice knowledge. Interdisciplinary Connections The content of the weekly session promote scientific understanding in making connections between the life sciences, collecting observational data, conducting simple experiments, and gaining knowledge of health and nutrition. Integrated within this study is opportunity for students to write, discuss, classify, measure, compare, contrast, collaborate, cooperate, and problem solve. Materials and Resources:

For teachers • copies of all handout materials • folders • pencils • paper for observational sketches • clipboards for sketching plant growth • visual for food pyramid • food props for sorting into groups • color paper for activity (6 sheets orange, 5 sheets green, 4

sheets red, 3 sheets blue, 2 sheets purple, one sheet yellow)• food pyramid model

202 Key Vocabulary

• fruit • vegetable • grains • milk • dairy • meat • beans • oil • servings • pyramid • food group • portion size

204

WEEK 3: FRUIT + VEGETABLES = FIBER


a) Use resources to determine the meanings and pronunciations of unknown words i) Determine the meaning of unknown words using a beginner’s dictionary

6) Reading Process: Contents of Print, Comprehension Strategies and Self-Monitoring Strategies Standard a) Apply reading skills and strategies to summarize and compare and contrast

information in text, between text and across subject areas i) Compare and contrast information in texts with prior knowledge and

experience Mathematics 1) Patterns, Functions and Algebra Standard

b) Describe and compare qualitative and quantitative change i) Describe qualitative and quantitative changes, especially those involving

addition and subtraction; e.g., a student growing taller versus a student growing two inches in one year

5) Geometry and Spatial Sense Standard a) Describe location, using comparative, directional, and positional words

i) Name and demonstrate the relative position of objects, extending the use of location words to include distance (near, far, close to) and directional words (left, right)

Science 3) Life Sciences Standard


water, food, living space and shelter b) Explain how organisms function and interact with their physical environments

i) Explain that food comes from sources other than grocery stores ii) Investigate the different structures of plants and animals that help them live in

different environments (e.g., lungs, gills, leaves and roots) c) Describe similarities and differences that exist among individuals of the same

kind of plants and animals i) Compare similarities and differences among individuals of the same kind of

plants and animals, including people Social Studies 2) Social Studies Skills and Methods Standard


205

Lesson Summary: Students in grades 1-4 attending the Kids on Campus 2008 Gardening Program: Big Top Garden, will participate in weekly sessions. During Week Three:

1) Introduce the concept of fiber to the children and give a brief explanation of why it is important to have in the diet as well as food sources.

2) Through the use of handouts children will learn the parts of the plant and how each produces an edible part that can provide fiber to our diet.

3) Provide children with sprouts to take home in order to introduce a possible new source of fiber to their diet.

Estimated Duration:

Students participate in the Kids on Campus 2008 Gardening Program over a 6 week period, attending a weekly session.


1) Garden Observation (15 minutes) 2) Message (20 minutes) 3) Activity (25 minutes)

“Fit-tip” message of the week: Getting fiber from eating fruits and vegetables keeps me healthy!

Pre-Assessment:

Students will engage in a discussion about fiber and its purpose and role in humans’ diets, the focus being on identification of why the substance is important and how to include it in our diet. The teacher will collect observational data to assess children’s understanding of the discussion of the term. Discussion about students’ sketches of the growing plants in their Big Top Garden will serve as baseline information of students understanding of the parts of the plant.

Scoring Guidelines:

206 Students’ ability to identify part of the plant and use of the terminology from the food pyramid will serve as an assessment tool for directing the discussion and exploration.

Post-Assessment:

The teacher uses the observational data and work samples of students to note their use of vocabulary, ability to identify changes in their plants’ growth, parts of the plants, and sources of fiber to include in their diet.


Garden observation (15 minutes)-



• Distribute Fruit + Vegetables = Fiber handout as well as additional EarthBox handouts through folders.

• Fit-tip message is read aloud as is F+V=F handout by children. Benefits and purpose of fiber is explained and then children are asked to provide some suggestions of foods we could eat to get our fiber.

• Tied in with fiber, another handout that is provided discusses the parts of the plant and how each produce an edible result:

o Roots= carrots, potatoes, radishes o Stem= celery o Leaves= lettuce o Flower= cauliflower, broccoli o Seed= corn, peas

• Message is then finished with handout children complete by drawing different fruits or vegetables and then labeling the part of the plant they come from.

Activity: Growing Sprouts (25 minutes)-

• Each child is given a glass jelly jar and removes the lid. • The instructor then gives each child a tablespoon or two of mung bean

sprout seeds in their jars. • The children then go fill the jars to about an inch above the seeds and

replace the lid. • After checking to make sure all lids are on securely, the group then takes

the jars and shakes them to “help them grow”.

207

• The children then take jars home and are instructed to place them in a dark area rinsing the seeds daily until they grow and then can be eaten.

• Further instructions are provided on the F+V=F handout for the family. • Children then take their jar and handouts home.


For teachers • copies of all handout materials (Fruit + Vegetable = Fiber, and EarthBox)

• folders • pencils • paper for observational sketches • clipboards for sketching plant growth • visuals for parts of plants • beginner’s dictionary • glass jelly jar for each child • mung bean sprout seeds • soil • jar lids

208

Key Vocabulary

• fiber • fruit • vegetable • beans • roots • carrots • potatoes • radishes • stem • celery • leaves • lettuce • flower • cauliflower • broccoli • seed • corn • peas • sprout

210

WEEK 4: TEAMWORK

Ohio Standards Connections: English Language Arts 7) Research Standard

a) Retell important details and findings i) Recall information about a topic with teacher assistance

8) Communication: Oral and Visual Standard a) Use active listening strategies to identify the main idea and to gain information

from oral presentation i) Identify the main idea of oral presentations and visual media ii) Use active listening strategies, such as making eye contact and asking for

clarification and explanation b) Follow multi-step directions

i) Follow two- and three-step oral directions Mathematics 6) Geometry and Spatial Sense Standard

a) Describe location, using comparative, directional, and positional words i) Name and demonstrate the relative position of objects, extending the use of

location words to include distance (near, far, close to) and directional words (left, right)



water, food, living space and shelter Social Studies 1) Geography Standard

a) Identify the location of Ohio, the United States, the continents and oceans on maps, globes, and other geographic representations i) Identify and correctly use terms related to location, direction and distance

including: left/right; near/far 3) Social Studies Skills and Methods Standard


4) Citizenship Rights and Responsibilities Standard a) Describe the results of cooperation in group settings and demonstrate the

necessary skills i) Demonstrate skills and explain the benefits of cooperation when working in a

group setting

211

Lesson Summary: Students in grades 1-4 attending the Kids on Campus 2008 Gardening Program: Big Top Garden, will participate in weekly sessions. During Week Four:

a. Children will learn the basic concepts of vitamins and minerals and how they help the body to stay healthy.

b. They will also be able to identify multiple examples of foods high in Vitamin C and/or iron.

c. The concept of Vitamin C and iron working together in the body will also be explained through the use of an activity.

Estimated Duration:



1) Garden Observation (15 minutes)

2) Message (20 minutes) 3) Activity (25 minutes)

“Fit-tip” message of the week: Vitamins and minerals in food work together to keep me healthy!

Pre-Assessment:

Students will be engaged in a discussion of working together, sharing personal experience related to the concept. The teacher will use the prompt of asking for students to name famous teammates that worked in pairs; e.g., Batman and Robin, Bert and Ernie, etc. Incidence of helping behaviors will be noted by the teacher to focus students’ attention of the concept of team work and its benefits.

Scoring Guidelines:

212 Using guided writing experience, the teacher will record children’s stories emphasizing terms used that align with concept of team work.

Post-Assessment:

The teacher uses the observational data and work samples of students to note their use of vocabulary, ability to successfully navigate the maze with a partner, and use directional words, terminology, and nutritional terms.





• Children’s folders are distributed with handouts for the week and the “fit-tip” message is read aloud by the group.

• Instructor gives brief explanation on the purpose of vitamins and minerals and examples of what foods Vitamin C and iron are specifically found in.

• Vitamin C and iron are then explained further and their purpose and function in the body are discussed with the group in order to emphasize their importance to our health.

• The teamwork aspect of Vitamin C and iron is then explained in the sense that Vitamin C and iron can both help the body in their own way but when used together they work much better and faster. This concept will come in to play during the activity.

Activity (30 minutes)-

• Children are taken outside and paired up by their choosing. One child decides to be Vitamin C while the other is iron.

• The child playing Vitamin C must close their eyes and/or cover them while the child playing iron leads them through a maze. This reinforces the concept that on its own, Vitamin C could make it through on its own but it will be a lot faster and more efficient if iron helps.

• Once through the maze the children switch roles and go again so each can experience both sides. The children may go through as many times as they like as long as they do not harm each other.

• After the completion of the activity the children collect their handouts from this week and take them home.

213 Differentiated Instructional Support Material will be presented in written and visual forms to accommodate emergent readers. Instructions will be given verbally and in pictorial form to accommodate variations in learning styles, strengths, and ability levels. Equipment and concrete materials will be made accessible to all students to facilitate autonomy and promote success for each child. Extension Students are encouraged to communicate their experiences with family and engage the family unit in continuation of the project beyond the scope of the Kids on Campus Program. Materials are provided to promote communication with family in a reciprocal manner, with the student incorporating their knowledge of food and nutrition in their personal and classroom experience. Homework Options and Home Connections Students are provided materials and products introduced in the Big Top Garden program with the objective they will be incorporated into the student’s diet and food choice knowledge. Interdisciplinary Connections The content of the weekly session promote scientific understanding in making connections between the life sciences, collecting observational data, conducting simple experiments, and gaining knowledge of health and nutrition. Integrated within this study is opportunity for students to write, discuss, classify, measure, compare, contrast, collaborate, cooperate, and problem solve. Materials and Resources:

For teachers • copies of all handout materials • folders • pencils • paper for observational sketches • clipboards for sketching plant growth • easel paper to record dictation of students’ discussion of

teamwork • marker • chairs and desks to create maze • scarf for blindfold

Key Vocabulary

• Vitamin • Vitamin C • iron • team work

215

WEEK 5: DYNAMIC DUO

Ohio Standards Connections: English Language Arts 9) Communication: Oral and Visual Standard

a) Follow multi-step directions i) Follow two- and three-step oral directions

10) Phonemic Awareness, Work Recognition and Fluency Standard a) Demonstrate fluent oral reading using sight words and decoding skills, varying

intonation and timing as appropriate for text i) Demonstrate growing stock of sight words

11) Acquisition of Vocabulary Standard a) Use context clues to determine the meaning of new vocabulary

i) Use knowledge of word order and in-sentence context clues to support word identification and to define unknown words while reading


a) Describe similarities and differences that exist among individuals of the same kind of plant and animals i) Compare similarities and differences among individuals of the same kind of

plants and animals, including people 6) Scientific Inquiry Standard

a) Ask a testable question i) Ask “what happens when” questions

Social Studies 2) Geography Standard

a) Identify the location of Ohio, the United States, the continents and oceans on maps, globes, and other geographic representations i) Identify and correctly use terms related to location, direction and distance

including: left/right; near/far 5) Social Studies Skills and Methods Standard


216

Lesson Summary: Students in grades 1-4 attending the Kids on Campus 2008 Gardening Program: Big Top Garden, will participate in weekly sessions. During Week Five:

a. Children will build on their knowledge of vitamins and minerals from last week by learning more in depth on two others- Vitamin A and calcium.

b. Vitamin A and calcium’s purpose, food sources, and function in the body will all be discussed.

c. Handouts will be provided in order to emphasize the different areas affected by various vitamins and minerals.

Estimated Duration:




“Fit-tip” message of the week: Vitamin A and calcium are key nutrients for health!

Pre-Assessment:

Students will be engaged in a review of the previous week’s discussion of working together, sharing personal experience related to the concept. The teacher will use the prompt of asking for students to name famous teammates that worked in pairs; e.g., Batman and Robin, Bert and Ernie, etc. Incidence of helping behaviors will be noted by the teacher to focus students’ attention of the concept of team work and its benefits.

Scoring Guidelines:

217 Using guided writing experience, the teacher will record children’s stories emphasizing terms used that align with concept of team work.

Post-Assessment:

The teacher uses the observational data and work samples of students to note their use of vocabulary, ability to successfully navigate the maze with a partner, and use directional words, terminology, and nutritional terms.





• Once folders are distributed with handouts for that week, children read fit tip aloud as a group.

• Instructor then provides brief explanation of Vitamin A and calcium including their benefits, food sources, and what roles they play in the body.

• A vegetable pizza recipe provided on the handout is then used as an example of how to get both Vitamin A and calcium in the same meal.


• Children are provided with two handouts in their folders: o Map of the body indicating where each vitamin and mineral plays

a role o Fruit and vegetable alphabet list

• The group discusses the body handout while the children draw their own bodies around the skeleton provided on the handout. This allows for the children to relate to how each would help them.

• The next handout begins once children are finished drawing on the first. • Five to ten minutes are given for the children to start on the fruit and

vegetable alphabet on their own by trying to fill in letters A-E on their own.

• After they seem stumped, food models are brought out to attempt to jog their memories and give them visual cues. This can also be tied in with week 4 and 5’s lessons by quizzing the children on what vitamins and minerals each of the foods have.

218

• After the handouts are complete the children may take them home to share with their families.


For teachers • copies of all handout materials • folders • pencils • paper for observational sketches • clipboards for sketching plant growth • easel paper to record dictation of students’ discussion of

teamwork • marker • map of body handout and visual • fruit and vegetable alphabet list • food models • recipe visual for vegetable pizza

219 Key Vocabulary

• Vitamin • Vitamin A • calcium • skeleton • body • mineral • vegetable pizza • recipe

221

WEEK 6: SCRAPS TO SOIL

Ohio Standards Connections: English Language Arts 12) Communication: Oral and Visual Standard

a) Follow multi-step directions i) Follow two- and three-step oral directions

13) Phonemic Awareness, Work Recognition and Fluency Standard a) Demonstrate fluent oral reading using sight words and decoding skills, varying

intonation and timing as appropriate for text i) Demonstrate growing stock of sight words

14) Acquisition of Vocabulary Standard a) Use context clues to determine the meaning of new vocabulary

i) Use knowledge of word order and in-sentence context clues to support word identification and to define unknown words while reading

Math 1) Number, Number Sense and Operations Standard

a) Recognize, classify, compare and order whole numbers i) Recognize and generate equivalent forms for the same number using physical

models Science 1) Earth and Space Science Standard

a) Explain that living things cause changes on Earth i) Explain that all organisms cause changes in the environment where they live;

the changes can be very noticeable or slightly noticeable, fast or slow b) Describe what resources are and recognize some are limited but can be extended

through recycling or decreased use i) Identify that resources are things that we get from the living and nonliving

environment and that resources are necessary to meet the needs and wants of a population

ii) Explain that the supply of many resources is limited but the supply can be extended through careful use, decreased use, reusing and/or recycling

Social Studies 6) Social Studies Skills and Methods Standard


222

Lesson Summary: Students in grades 1-4 attending the Kids on Campus 2008 Gardening Program: Big Top Garden, will participate in weekly sessions. During Week Six:

a. All previous lesson objectives should still be able to be discussed by the group.

b. The benefits of composting and gardening will be explained and able to take home to the families.

c. The results of the garden will be observed by the children and provide a visual to the stages of the plant discussed in the first lesson.

Estimated Duration:




“Fit-tip” message of the week: Making compost reduces waste and helps the garden!

Pre-Assessment:

Students will be engaged in a review of the previous week’s discussions with completion of a K-W-L chart at the beginning of the session.

Scoring Guidelines: The teacher will note the students’ recall and connections of previous knowledge.

Post-Assessment:

223 The teacher uses the observational data and work samples of students to note their use of vocabulary, terminology, and nutritional terms.





• Once again the children will fill out fruit and vegetable check lists by marking a check in the box if they’ve eaten the food in the past week and circling the food if they like it. These will be used to compare to their first check lists for differences.

• After the completion of the checklists the group will read the “fit-tip” aloud together.

• Instructor will give a brief explanation of the benefits of composting, what it is, as well as what is put in a compost pile and what is left out.


• After the discussion with the group covering what goes in a compost pile and what does not each child receives an item and gets in a line. Items include:

o Food models o Paper o “grass” o News paper o Plastic bottles o Plastic toys o Glass bottles o Duct tape o Shoes o Plants o Dirt

• Once in line the instructor stands in front with a bin (compost box) and asks each child if their item goes in the bin or not and why. The group can help if the child is not sure about their item.

• After the compost pile has been made the group discusses its benefits to the garden and how they could do the activity at home.

224

• At the end of the session the children take all remaining handouts home to share with their families while the instructor keeps the folders with their drawings and checklists from each week.

Differentiated Instructional Support Material will be presented in written and visual forms to accommodate emergent readers. Instructions will be given verbally and in pictorial form to accommodate variations in learning styles, strengths, and ability levels. Equipment and concrete materials will be made accessible to all students to facilitate autonomy and promote success for each child. Extension Students are encouraged to communicate their experiences with family and engage the family unit in continuation of the project beyond the scope of the Kids on Campus Program. Materials are provided to promote communication with family in a reciprocal manner, with the student incorporating their knowledge of food and nutrition in their personal and classroom experience. Homework Options and Home Connections Students are provided materials and products introduced in the Big Top Garden program with the objective they will be incorporated into the student’s diet and food choice knowledge. Interdisciplinary Connections The content of the weekly session promote scientific understanding in making connections between the life sciences, collecting observational data, conducting simple experiments, and gaining knowledge of health and nutrition. Integrated within this study is opportunity for students to write, discuss, classify, measure, compare, contrast, collaborate, cooperate, and problem solve. Materials and Resources: For teachers

• copies of all handout materials • folders • pencils • paper for observational sketches • clipboards for sketching plant growth • easel paper to record K-W-L • marker • Food models • Paper • “grass” • News paper • Plastic bottles • Plastic toys • Glass bottles • Duct tape • Shoes • Plants

225

• Dirt

Key Vocabulary

• composting • compost pile • waste • recycle • reduce • reuse • Food models • Paper • “grass” • News paper • Plastic bottles • Plastic toys • Glass bottles • Duct tape • Shoes • Plants • Dirt

226

SCRAPS TO SOIL K I D S O N C A M P U S

Composting is when you turn old food scraps, dead plants, and paper into yummy soil for your garden!

Indoor Composting with WORMS!

Put moist shredded brown

leaves and papers into a

bin with several holes in

the side.

Add one cup of dirt to the

paper mixture and place

red worms on top.

Bury green stuff (old food)

under the paper.

Within six weeks the

worms will help make great

soil for other plants to

grow.

Compost helps: Make soil better for growing

Prevent pollution and landfills

Save money

Make a compost bin in your own backyard! Have your family help you make a bin (3ft high and square) out of wood scraps, plastic, or metal fencing.

Make sure there are holes to allow air to go in and out.

Mix green stuff (food scraps and grass) brown stuff (dead plants) and water.

Soil will form at the bottom of the bin for your garden.

227

APPENDIX F: CHILD FRUIT AND VEGETABLE SURVEYS

Use of a Gardening and Nutrition Education Program to Improve the Produce Intake of School Age...

Self Improvement

Transcript of Use of a Gardening and Nutrition Education Program to Improve the Produce Intake of School Age...