Table 1. Rejected, Partially Implemented, or Delayed Intervention Activities Presented to the Food Policy Committees at Schools and Community Meals Programs Participating in the Sodium Reduction in Communities Program, Northwest Arkansas, 2016–2017.
| Intervention Strategies and Activities | Food Policy Committee Decisiona | Reason for Decision |
|---|---|---|
| Schools | ||
| Procurement practices to reduce sodium content | ||
| Form a purchasing cooperative with neighboring school districts to negotiate favorable prices for lower-sodium products and ingredients | Reject | Districts were served by different vendors and had very different menus and student populations |
| Remove high-sodium items from the menu, including pizza and cookies | Reject | District personnel indicated that these items were popular with students |
| Food preparation practices to reduce sodium content of menu items and meals | ||
| Implement recipe modifications developed by students at local center for culinary arts | Partially implement | Many proposed recipes were impractical because of expense and number of ingredients and use of uncommon or noncommodity ingredients |
| Increase use of fresh ingredients (eg, herbs, vegetables) to add flavor in place of salt | Delay | Food preparation staff lacked time to devote to preparing additional fresh ingredients; insufficient number of staff with sufficient knife skills |
| Environmental strategies that encourage reductions in dietary sodium intake | ||
| Place posters featuring sodium reduction messages in student dining areas of cafeterias | Delay | District personnel wanted to delay implementation to generate student enthusiasm by placing posters at the beginning of a new school year |
| Re-order list of menu items on digital menus to highlight lower-sodium items | Delay | Staff lacked time and knowledge to reprogram digital signage |
| Rearrange drinks in coolers to promote lower-sodium options | Delay | Some coolers (eg, those with fixed shelving) could not be reconfigured to highlight lower-sodium options |
| Purchase and implement upgraded displays (eg, fruit baskets) to promote lower-sodium options | Delay | The 2015–2016 equipment purchasing cycle had ended |
| Community Meals Programs | ||
| Procurement practices to reduce sodium content | ||
| Reduce the amount of high-sodium–donated restaurant food served | Reject | Community meals programs expressed concern that they could not afford to purchase enough lower-sodium food to replace high-sodium–donated restaurant food |
| Replace canned vegetables at 1 program with lower-sodium frozen vegetables | Reject | Community meals program indicated it lacked sufficient freezer space (freezer space was filled with donated restaurant food) |
| Remove donuts from meals at 1 program | Reject | Community meals program indicated that donuts were popular with diners |
| Implement new lower-sodium recipes | Partially implement | Community meals programs expressed concern about the expense and difficulty of acquiring several lower-sodium ingredients from vendors and stores |
| Food preparation practices to reduce sodium content of menu items and meals | ||
| Increase use of fresh ingredients (eg, herbs, vegetables) to add flavor in lieu of salt | Delay | Food preparation staff lacked time to devote to preparing additional fresh ingredients; staff lacked consistent access to low-cost fresh ingredients |
| Replace prepackaged salad dressings with lower-sodium dressing made on site | Reject | One community meals program indicated that salad dressing was often received as a donation, so they did not want to spend budget to make their own |
| Environmental strategies that encourage reductions in dietary sodium intake | ||
| Implement flavor stations in dining areas to replace salt shakers | Reject | Community meals programs expressed concerns about food safety and disruption of the flow of diners through the serving area while using flavor stations |
a
“Reject” indicates that the food policy committee declined to implement the activity. “Partially implement” indicates that the food policy committee implemented some components of the activity but not all. “Delay” indicates that the food policy committee decided to delay implementation of the activity until project Year 2 or later.