Skip to main content
PLOS Medicine logoLink to PLOS Medicine
. 2022 Jan 18;19(1):e1003881. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003881

A nationwide school fruit and vegetable policy and childhood and adolescent overweight: A quasi-natural experimental study

Bente Øvrebø 1,2,3,*, Tonje H Stea 4,5, Ingunn H Bergh 2, Elling Bere 1,2,3, Pål Surén 6, Per Magnus 7, Petur B Juliusson 8,9,10, Andrew K Wills 11,12
Editor: Barry M Popkin13
PMCID: PMC8765663  PMID: 35041660

Abstract

Background

School free fruit and vegetable (FFV) policies are used to promote healthy dietary habits and tackle obesity; however, our understanding of their effects on weight outcomes is limited. We assess the effect of a nationwide FFV policy on childhood and adolescent weight status and explore heterogeneity by sex and socioeconomic position.

Methods and findings

This study used a quasi-natural experimental design. Between 2007 and 2014, Norwegian combined schools (grades 1–10, age 6 to 16 years) were obligated to provide FFVs while elementary schools (grades 1–7) were not. We used 4 nationwide studies (n = 11,215 children) from the Norwegian Growth Cohort with longitudinal or cross-sectional anthropometric data up to age 8.5 and 13 years to capture variation in FFV exposure. Outcomes were body mass index standard deviation score (BMISDS), overweight and obesity (OW/OB), waist circumference (WC), and weight to height ratio (WtHR) at age 8.5 years, and BMISDS and OW/OB at age 13 years. Analyses included longitudinal models of the pre- and post-exposure trajectories to estimate the policy effect. The participation rate in each cohort was >80%, and in most analyses <4% were excluded due to missing data. Estimates were adjusted for region, population density, and parental education. In pooled models additionally adjusted for pre-exposure BMISDS, there was little evidence of any benefit or unintended consequence from 1–2.5 years of exposure to the FFV policy on BMISDS, OW/OB, WC, or WtHR in either sex. For example, boys exposed to the FFV policy had a 0.05 higher BMISDS (95% CI: −0.04, 0.14), a 1.20-fold higher odds of OW/OB (95% CI: 0.86, 1.66) and a 0.3 cm bigger WC (95% CI: −0.3, 0.8); while exposed girls had a 0.04 higher BMISDS (95% CI: −0.04, 0.13), a 1.03 fold higher odds of OW/OB (95% CI: 0.75, 1.39), and a 0-cm difference in WC (95% CI: −0.6, 0.6). There was evidence of heterogeneity in the policy effect estimates at 8.5 years across cohorts and socioeconomic position; however, these results were inconsistent with other comparisons. Analysis at age 13 years, after 4 years of policy exposure, also showed little evidence of an effect on BMISDS or OW/OB. The main limitations of this study are the potential for residual confounding and exposure misclassification, despite efforts to minimize their impact on conclusions.

Conclusions

In this study we observed little evidence that the Norwegian nationwide FFV policy had any notable beneficial effect or unintended consequence on weight status among Norwegian children and adolescents.


Bente Øvrebø and colleagues assess whether a nationwide free school fruit and vegetable policy was associated with weight outcomes in children and early adolescents in Norway.

Author summary

Why was this study done?

  • To promote a healthy diet, from 2007 to 2014 a nationwide free fruit and vegetable policy ensured that a daily piece of free fruit or vegetable was available to all children in Norwegian combined schools (covering grades 1–10, age 6 to 16 years).

  • Studies on the potential benefits or consequences of such fruit and vegetable policies are important in improving public health efforts to tackle childhood overweight and obesity.

What did the researchers do and find?

  • The policy rollout resulted in provision of free fruit and vegetables to children in combined elementary and secondary schools, while children in pure elementary schools were not exposed to the free fruit and vegetable policy.

  • We exploited this quasi-natural experimental design to assess whether there was any evidence of an effect of up to 4 years of exposure to the free fruit and vegetable policy on weight-related outcomes.

  • Using data from 11,215 Norwegian children and early adolescents, we observed little evidence of any beneficial or unintended impact from exposure to the free fruit and vegetable policy on weight outcomes in either boys or girls at age 8.5 and 13 years.

What do these findings mean?

  • Our findings suggest that a national free fruit and vegetable policy alone is unlikely to have a notable impact on population childhood weight outcomes; however, such policies may promote a healthy diet without unintended consequences.

Introduction

Schools are an optimal setting for health promotion due to the potential to reach all children regardless of socio-demographics [1]. The World Health Organization has highlighted the importance of school nutrition policies in promoting a healthy diet, and the European Union has implemented a school fruit and vegetable (FV) policy to enhance adherence to nutritional recommendations and prevent overweight and obesity (OW/OB) [24]. In 2020–2021, 26 of 44 European countries distributed FVs to schoolchildren [5]. Similar programs have been implemented elsewhere [68].

National school FV programs have been shown to increase FV consumption among children [6,7,9], but our understanding of their effect on childhood obesity outcomes is limited [8,10]. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indicate that increased FV consumption may promote weight loss and prevent weight gain [11,12], as the FVs consumed may substitute for more energy-dense foods [13,14]. However, school food provision, such as school lunch programs, could increase weight [15]. Given the public health challenge of childhood OW/OB [1618], information about the possible benefits or unintended consequences of school dietary interventions is clearly important. Despite this, there are very few evaluations of school FFV provision. Two studies, with 7- and 14-year follow-up, comparing self-reported weight status of Norwegians who had received 1 elementary school year of free FVs (FFVs) compared to controls found little evidence for an effect on overweight although the sample size in both studies was small [10,19]. Another study investigated the effect of a FFV program in low-income public schools in Arkansas, US [8]. This study, set in a population with a high prevalence of childhood obesity, showed a reduction in body mass index (BMI) and obesity. Larger, more population-wide evaluations of school FFV provision on OW/OB are clearly needed [10,19].

From 2007 to 2014, the Norwegian government implemented a nationwide school FFV provision policy for lower secondary schools (pupils age 13–15 years). Since approximately one-third of elementary schools are combined with lower secondary schools, elementary age children (6–12 years) attending a combined school also received FFVs while those attending a pure elementary school did not receive FFVs, providing a nationwide quasi-natural experimental setting for policy evaluation [20]. Our objective was to assess whether exposure to the nationwide FFV policy for up to 4 years from starting school resulted in any benefits or unintended consequences with respect to childhood and early adolescent BMI and weight status. We also assessed if the response differed by sex and socioeconomic position.

Methods

The FFV policy and analytical design

From August 2007 to June 2014, all combined schools (grades 1–10) in Norway were obligated by the FFV policy to provide pupils with a daily portion of FVs while all pure elementary schools (grades 1–7) were not (referred to as no FFV [NFFV] schools). The FFV policy was not accompanied by other components beyond FV provision. The portion typically consisted of an apple, pear, banana, orange, clementine, kiwi, carrot, or nectarine and was usually provided during lunch. The study design was driven by the policy rollout and the availability of datasets from the Norwegian Growth Cohort. The analysis strategy was planned a priori, but we did not register a protocol due to a combination of delays in data access and fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. Any secondary or post hoc analyses that were done in response to the results or the review process are defined in the text. This study is reported as per the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline (S1 Checklist).

Four nationwide cohorts that are part of the Norwegian Childhood Growth Study (NCGS) and Norwegian Youth Growth Study (NYGS) were used to capture variation in FFV policy exposure. The NCGS is a repeated cross-sectional survey of height, weight, and waist circumference (WC) of 8-year-old children (grade 3) conducted in schools in 2010, 2012, and 2015. The NYGS is similar but was conducted in 2017 on 13-year-olds (grade 8) and only for height and weight. We refer to these as the 2010, 2012, 2015, and 2017 cohorts. We also obtained repeated height and weight measurements recorded during the routine national health examinations scheduled from birth to 6 years of age for the 2010 and 2015 cohorts and from birth to 8 years of age for the 2017 cohort (S1 Fig shows a schematic of the study design). These cohorts allow several comparisons to assess the consistency of the evidence and strengthen causal inference. First, within each cohort there is variation in whether a child attended a FFV school or a NFFV school. Second, there is variation in the duration of exposure between some cohorts. Third, 2 of the cohorts were exposed for the same duration of exposure (2010 and 2012 cohorts), providing replication. Fourth, longitudinal information from 3 of the cohorts allow comparisons of the outcome trajectories before the intervention.

Participants

Both the NCGS and NYGS used a 2-stage sampling scheme to obtain a nationally representative sample. In the first stage, 10 out of 19 counties were sampled from the geographical regions in Norway. In the second stage, schools were randomly sampled within each county. In the NCGS, the same 130 schools were invited to participate in 2010, 2012, and 2015, and between 123 to 126 schools agreed; in the NYGS, 150 out of 159 secondary schools participated. All third graders in participating schools were sampled in the NCGS cohorts, while 1 grade 8 class per school was sampled in the NYGS. The individual-level participation rate was >80% in the NCGS cohorts (2010, n = 3,182; 2012, n = 3,508; 2015, n = 3,338). The individual participation rate in the NYGS 2017 is unknown (n = 1,907). Additional information about the NCGS and NYGS can be found elsewhere [21,22].

Data collection

Anthropometry

Height (to the nearest 0.1 cm), weight (to the nearest 0.1 kg), and WC (to the nearest 0.1 cm) were measured by school nurses during the fall for all cohorts using similar protocols (WC was not assessed in the 2017 cohort). The routine anthropometrics from health records were measured by nurses in health centers and the School Health Service. In Norway these measurements are scheduled at birth and 6 weeks; 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, and 24 months; and 3, 4, 6, 8 (grade 3), and 13 years (grade 8). There is fluctuation around these target ages, and some appointments are missed (see S2 Fig). All height and weight values were cleaned using a longitudinal algorithm that checked for logical errors and internally inconsistent values [23]. Full details of these quality assurance processes are described elsewhere [21,22].

School information

School names, extracted from questionnaires completed by school nurses, were linked with the national school registry to determine whether schools were combined (FFV) or pure elementary (NFFV) schools. This questionnaire was received from all schools in the NCGS, and 137/150 schools in the NYGS. Information on elementary school affiliation for the grade 8 participants in the NYGS was obtained by parents as part of the consent form.

Other data

National personal identification numbers were used to link children with records from the Medical Birth Registry of Norway and Statistics Norway. Parental education was used as an indicator for socioeconomic position. We used the highest parental education (mother or father) when the child was 4 years old, i.e., prior to policy exposure. Education was collapsed into 2 levels: higher education (education in university/college) or high school or less. Other classifications did not alter the main results at all (details in S6 Text). Information on county and health region (Northern, Central, Western, and Southern/Eastern) were used as markers of geographical location. A 3-category population density marker of school placement was obtained: urban (municipalities with a population > 50,000), semi-urban (municipalities with a population between 15,000 and 50,000), and rural (municipalities with a population < 15,000).

Outcomes

Outcomes were BMI and overweight including obesity (OW/OB) in the third (age approximately 8.5 years) and eighth grade (age approximately 13 years), and WC and waist to height ratio (WtHR) in the third grade. To meet the linearity assumption of the main analytical models, an internally standardized age- and sex-adjusted BMI standard deviation score (BMISDS) was created [24]; modeling on the raw (kg/m2) or externally standardized scale did not meet this assumption (see S1 Text for more details). Age- and sex-specific OW/OB was classified using the International Obesity Task Force cutoffs for BMI [25].

Exposure classification

For the 2010, 2012, and 2015 cohorts, children attending a combined school at recruitment (third grade) were classified as exposed to the FFV policy. For the 2017 cohort (recruited in grade 8), children were classified as exposed if they attended a combined school during primary years. This classification does not account for children who were exposed to both school types due to moving schools; however, based on information in the 2017 cohort, we estimate that this occurs in less than 4% of children (see S2 Text). For the outcomes in third grade, this corresponds to 2–2.5 school years of exposure in the 2010, 2012, and 2017 cohorts and 1 year of exposure in the 2015 cohort. For the outcomes in grade 8 in the 2017 cohort, this corresponds to 4 school years of exposure. As the first day of school for Norwegian first graders is in August of the year children turn 6, the earliest age at which any child would have received school FFVs is 5 years and 7 months.

Estimating the FFV policy effect

For BMISDS and OW/OB, where longitudinal data were available (cohorts 2010, 2015, and 2017), 2 approaches were used to estimate the FFV policy effect. The first, illustrated in Fig A in S3 Text, is similar to a comparative interrupted time series analysis [26]. The pre- and post-intervention slopes in each group were modeled with linear splines and a knot at the pre-exposure age 5.5 years. The counterfactual is the trajectory that the FFV group would have taken in the absence of the intervention and is estimated by the change in slopes in the NFFV group. The between-group difference in the pre–post difference in slopes is thus an estimate of the FFV policy effect. This can be parameterized as:

E(Y)=β0+β1S1+β2S2+γ0I+γ1I*S1+γ2I*S2 (1)

where I is a binary variable indicating FFV exposure, and S1 and S2 are linear splines of age centered at the pre-intervention knot (additional details in S3 Text). β0, β1, and β2 describe the outcome, E(Y), at 5.5 years and the pre- and post-intervention slopes, respectively, in the control group. γ0, γ1 and γ2 are the mean difference in intercept at 5.5 years and mean difference in pre- and post-intervention slopes, respectively, between the FFV and NFFV groups. Where pre-intervention slopes were similar, γ1 was removed and γ2 is the estimate of the policy effect. Where the pre-intervention slopes were different (as estimated by γ1), γ2−γ1 is the effect estimate, but in this situation, where pre-intervention slopes are not parallel, the counterfactual that slopes would have changed in the same way as the controls is less credible. Similar reasoning applies when there is a large difference in the pre-intervention intercept (γ0). Hence a second approach that adjusts for the pre-intervention value of the outcome was also estimated:

E(Y)=β0+β1YPRE+δ1I (2)

Here, YPRE is the closest available measurement before the introduction of the FFV exposure (5.5 years), and δ1 is an estimate of the FFV effect (the difference in Y between groups after accounting for baseline differences). To estimate the effect at 13 years in 2017, Eqs 1 and 2 were extended in a separate model to include an extra knot at age 8.5 years (see S3 Text). For the WC and WtHR outcomes, where only a single measure of the outcome was available, the FFV policy effect estimator simplifies to a post-intervention between-group comparison (i.e., Eq 2 without β1). Other potential confounders were added to these models (explained below).

Analytical dataset

The pre-intervention slopes were modeled from age 2 years. To remove measurement clumping and minimize selection bias, if an individual had more than 1 measure at a target age, the value closest to the median age at each target assessment was selected. To ensure that the pre- and post-exposure slopes were demarcated by unexposed and exposed data points and avoid bias in estimating the 2 slopes, measures from age 5.7 years to 7 years were not included (see S3 Text for more details). More than 69% of individuals included in the analysis contributed at least 3 repeated measures.

FFV policy allocation and estimating a causal effect

Allocation of the FFV policy could not be considered “as if” random. Combined (FFV) schools are more likely to be in areas of lower population density compared to pure elementary (NFFV) schools and are thus more common in rural regions of Norway such as the Northern region (see S4 Text). A directed acyclic graph (DAG) was thus used to inform which variables to adjust for to obtain a causal estimate of the policy effect (S5 Text; Fig A in S5 Text). Based on the DAG and testing the assumptions it encodes, the following variables were deemed sufficient to adjust for: region, population density, cohort, and parental education. The DAG also suggests parental education and sex may modify the effect of the FFV policy since they may affect whether or not the FVs are consumed and/or any induced dietary change. We also consider a separate and additional adjustment for pre-intervention BMI as this is a marker of the obesogenic environment of the child.

Analyses

FFV allocation and pre-intervention comparisons

Characteristics prior to exposure (sex, parental education, region, and population density) were described by cohort and by FFV allocation. The pre-intervention slopes and intercepts of the BMISDS and OW/OB outcomes were compared between groups using multilevel models (MLMs), and the marginal unadjusted and adjusted (described below) trajectories were plotted.

Main analysis

Analyses were stratified by cohort (due to differences in exposure duration), and sex (see DAG; Fig A in S5 Text), and pooled estimates were also produced. To make use of all available outcome data and account for the hierarchical structure, MLMs were used with random intercepts for each school and child, and random slopes for each child for the BMISDS outcome. Autocorrelation in the BMISDS models was handled using a first order autoregressive structure. A logit MLM with maximum likelihood and adaptive Gauss–Hermite quadrature estimation was used for the OW/OB outcome.

For the longitudinal cohorts (2010, 2015, and 2017), 3 sets of models were estimated: (1) an unadjusted model (crude); (2) a model adjusting for region, population density, and parental education (adjusted); and (3) a model with additional adjustment for pre-intervention BMISDS (+pre-intervention adjusted). Potential confounders were allowed to affect intercepts and slopes, and pooled models included similar terms for cohort. For the cross-sectional WC and WtHR outcomes, only the crude and adjusted models could be estimated using the 2010, 2012, and 2015 cohorts. To assess potential effect modification by socioeconomic position, similar models were estimated but stratified by parental education (higher education or high school or less), with Wald tests of the interaction terms.

Effect estimates are reported comparing the difference in outcome at age 8.5 years and age 13 years between FFV exposure and the counterfactual (as estimated using NFFV schools). As WC was not measured in the NYGS, WC and WtHR outcome estimates could not be estimated at age 13 years. All results are displayed in forest-style plots to visualize heterogeneity.

Supplemental and sensitivity analyses

The Norwegian Directorate of Health and the Norwegian Fruit and Vegetable Marketing Board offer a national school FV subscription program that provides schools with the opportunity to offer FVs with parental payment. As all pure elementary schools (NFFV schools) were free to decide whether to offer parental paid FVs, we conducted a sensitivity analysis where we excluded children from the combined (NFFV) schools (151/335 schools; 2,022/6,168 children) that had offered the paid subscription program during at least 1 of the first 3 years of school, as ascertained from the Norwegian Fruit and Vegetable Marketing Board. If the FFV policy had a causal effect, estimates from this analysis would be expected to be stronger than those from the main analysis. All post hoc analyses were done as sensitivity analyses to check the robustness of any findings. These, alongside any analyses done in response to the review process, are defined as such in the text. Other sensitivity analyses were also performed to assess the robustness of findings to the analytical strategy; these are outlined in S5 Table.

Ethics

Data are from the Norwegian Growth Cohort. This consists of the NCGS and NYGS, both conducted by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health in collaboration with the School Health Service and in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration. Ethical approval and research clearance were obtained from the Regional Committee of Medical and Health Research Ethics (2017/431 and 2010/938), and the research was approved by the Norwegian Data Inspectorate. Detailed information about the studies (NCGS and NYGS) was sent to parents or guardians prior to each survey, and the School Health Service obtained written informed consent from parents or other legal guardians on behalf of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health.

Results

Description of sample

In total, 7,810/8,427 (93%) children and 21,508 observations were included in the pooled longitudinal analyses of BMISDS and OW/OB outcomes at 8.5 years, and 6,619 in models that adjusted for pre-intervention BMI. For WC 9,718/10,028 (97%) children were included. In the longitudinal analysis of BMISDS and OW/OB outcomes at 13 years, 1,533/1,907 (80%) adolescents were included, and 1,355 (71%) in models adjusted for pre-intervention BMI. Numbers excluded due to missing data were small: The largest proportion was in the 2017 cohort, where 17% were excluded due to insufficient school information to ascertain exposure status (see S3 Fig, showing the participant flow charts). Most children attended schools in urban areas in the Southern/Eastern region, reflecting the geographical distribution of the population (S2 Table). About 75% of all children attended schools in urban areas, and approximately half in the Southern/Eastern region. Approximately 20% of individuals were exposed to the FFV policy. This was higher (30%) in the 2017 cohort, reflecting oversampling in these regions. Of the 6,168 children in NFFV schools, 2,022 (33%) attended a school that had signed up to offer the parental paid FV subscription program. A full description of the cohorts is presented in S2 Table.

Internal validity of comparisons

S2 Table shows the distribution of characteristics by attendance at a FFV or NFFV school in our sample. Children were broadly similar in terms of sex and age at outcome assessment. Differences between regions and population density were as expected, with the Northern and Central regions and less urban areas having a higher proportion of FFV schools.

Fig 1 and S3 Table compare the pre-intervention BMISDS trajectories by policy exposure; similar results are shown in S4 Fig and S4 Table for the OW/OB outcome. The trajectories for BMISDS and prevalence of OW/OB were broadly similar in boys; for example, with cohorts pooled, boys who would attend a FFV school had a pre-intervention BMISDS 0.05 higher (95% CI: −0.06, 0.16) than those who would attend a NFFV school, after adjusting for differences in parental education, region, and population density. In girls, those who would attend a FFV school in the 2015 cohort had a more negative BMISDS slope and a lower BMISDS before the intervention compared to those who would attend a NFFV school. The pooled trajectories were more similar, with girls in the FFV group having a 0.08 lower pre-intervention BMISDS (95% CI: −0.20, 0.034). There was little evidence for differences in the pre-intervention OW/OB trajectory (S4 Fig; S4 Table).

Fig 1. Predicted pre-intervention (age 2 to 5.5 years) trajectories of BMISDS in boys and girls who would attend a FFV or a NFFV school.

Fig 1

FFV schools (orange); NFFV schools (navy). The marginal means in each cohort and pooled cohorts and in the crude and adjusted models are presented. BMISDS, body mass index standard deviation score; FFV, free fruit and vegetable; NFFV, no free fruit and vegetable.

Main analysis

Pooled

There was little evidence of a policy effect on BMISDS, OW/OB, WC, or WtHR (Fig 2) with cohorts pooled in either boys or girls at age 8.5 years, and all effect estimates were close to the null. Removing NFFV schools that offered a paid FV subscription program for most outcomes shifted effect estimates unremarkably in the direction of the null (opposite to what would be expected if the FFV policy had a causal effect; S5 Fig).

Fig 2. Estimates of the FFV policy effect on BMISDS, OW/OB, WC, and WtHR at age 8.5 years.

Fig 2

(a) BMISDS; (b) OW/OB; (c) WC; (d) WtHR. Results are presented by sex and cohort (including pooled) and for each model. Expressed as the difference in outcome or OR versus the counterfactual (as estimated using the NFFV schools) with 95% CI. Analysis of BMISDS and OW/OB: Pooled models include terms for cohort (intercept and slope). Adjusted models include region, population density, and highest parental education (all intercept and slope). +Pre-intervention adjusted models additionally include adjustment for BMISDS prior to the intervention. Note: Pre-intervention slopes were constrained to be the same in each group for all models except for BMISDS in 2015 cohort girls. Analysis of WC and WtHR: Outcomes are from grade 3 only. Pooled models include a term for cohort. Adjusted models include region, population density, and highest parental education. BMISDS, body mass index standard deviation score; exp’d, exposed; FFV, free fruit and vegetable; NFFV, no free fruit and vegetable; OR, odds ratio; OW/OB, overweight and obesity; WC, waist circumference; WtHR, waist to height ratio.

By cohort

Any observed cohort-specific policy associations were inconsistent. First, among boys in the 2010 cohort, there was a suggestion of higher BMISDS, OW/OB, WC, and WtHR in FFV than NFFV schools (Fig 2). However, the estimates for WC and WtHR were substantially attenuated after adjusting for differences in region, population density, and parental education. The estimates for the 2017 cohort (BMISDS, OW/OB) and 2012 cohort (WC, WtHR), which had the same exposure duration as the 2010 cohort but in which individuals were born 2 years later, were also close to the null, and so there was no replication of the 2010 suggestive findings. Removal of schools that signed up for the paid subscription program slightly increased the effect estimates in the 2010 cohort boys for BMISDS and OW/OB, but slightly attenuated the estimates for WC and WtHR (S5 Fig).

Second, boys in the 2015 FFV schools, with only 1 year of FFV exposure, had a lower rather than higher BMISDS (−0.12; 95% CI: −0.23, −0.01). However, this was an inconsistent dose–response pattern compared to the 2010 estimate, was attenuated after adjustment for pre-intervention BMISDS, and was not evident for any other outcome.

Third, girls from the same 2015 FFV schools had, on average, a higher BMISDS (+0.44; 95% CI: 0.20; 0.69), but this was completely attenuated after adjusting for the differences (noted above) in pre-intervention BMISDS.

By parental education

There was a suggestion of an interaction between the FFV policy and parental education. In the pooled and most-adjusted analyses, boys of parents without a higher education had, on average, an elevated BMISDS (+0.12, p for interaction = 0.04), an increased odds ratio (OR) of OW/OB (OR 1.66, p for interaction = 0.02), and a higher WC (+0.7 cm, p for interaction = 0.05) if they had attended a FFV school (Fig 3). This pattern was not evident in boys of parents with a higher education. The direction of this interaction was consistent across cohorts. However, the interaction was not evident for WtHR, and the interaction and effect sizes were similar or weaker after removing paid subscription schools (S6 Fig). There was also little evidence of an interaction in the girls across any outcome or cohort (Figs 3 and S8), and the direction of the interaction was in the opposite direction.

Fig 3. Estimates of the FFV policy effect on BMISDS, OW/OB, WC, and WtHR at age 8.5 years, stratified by highest parental education level.

Fig 3

(a) BMISDS; (b) OW/OB; (c) WC; (d) WtHR. Results are presented by sex, cohort (including pooled), and parental education for each model. Expressed as the difference in outcome or OR versus the counterfactual (as estimated using the NFFV schools) with 95% CI. The p-values are from a Wald test of the interaction between parental education and FFV. Analysis of BMISDS and OW/OB: Pooled models include terms for cohort (intercept and slope). Adjusted models include region and population density (all intercept and slope). +Pre-intervention adjusted models additionally include adjustment for BMISDS prior to the intervention. Analysis of WC and WtHR: Outcomes are from grade 3 only. Pooled models include a term for cohort. Adjusted models include region and population density. BMISDS, body mass index standard deviation score; Educ, parental education; exp’d, exposed; FFV, free fruit and vegetable; NFFV, no free fruit and vegetable; OR, odds ratio; OW/OB, overweight and obesity; WC, waist circumference; WtHR, waist to height ratio.

To assess whether the interaction in boys was caused by the FFV exposure or confounded by differences between school environments or the children who go to these schools, in a post hoc analysis we examined whether the same direction of interaction was evident within elementary-only schools, comparing schools that offered the paid FV subscription program versus schools that did not (see S7 Fig). We were unable to detect an interaction in these analyses, nor were interactions qualitatively in the same direction.

Outcomes at age 13 years

There was little evidence for a policy effect on BMISDS or OW/OB among adolescents (13 years) of either sex who had been exposed to the FFV policy for up to 4 years (Fig 4). However, there was a suggestion that girls of parents without a higher education had a lower BMISDS (−0.20; 95% CI: −0.41, 0.01) and a lower odds of OW/OB (OR 0.55; 95% CI: 0.27, 1.12) if they had attended a FFV school (p for both interactions = 0.05; see Fig 5) (the direction of this interaction was the same at 8.5 years but weaker). Results from the secondary analysis at age 13 years excluding NFFV schools that offered the paid FV subscription program (S8 Fig), and this analysis stratified by parental education (S9 Fig), were broadly similar.

Fig 4. Estimates of the FFV policy effect on BMISDS and OW/OB at age 13 years.

Fig 4

(a) BMISDS; (b) OW/OB. Results are presented by sex for each model and expressed as the difference in outcome or OR versus the counterfactual at 13 years (as estimated using the NFFV schools) with 95% CI. Note that data are from the 2017 cohort only. Crude models have no adjustment. Adjusted models include region, population density, and highest parental education (intercept and slopes). +Pre-intervention adjusted models include additional adjustment for BMISDS prior to the intervention. BMISDS, body mass index standard deviation score; FFV, free fruit and vegetable; NFFV, no free fruit and vegetable; OR, odds ratio; OW/OB, overweight and obesity.

Fig 5. Estimates of the FFV policy effect on BMISDS and OW/OB at age 13 years stratified by highest parental education level.

Fig 5

(a) BMISDS; (b) OW/OB. Results are presented by sex and parental education for each model. Expressed as the difference in outcome or OR versus the counterfactual (as estimated using the NFFV schools) with 95% CI. The p-values are from a Wald test of the interaction between parental education and FFV. Note that data are from the 2017 cohort only. Adjusted models include terms for region and population density (intercept and slopes). +Pre-intervention adjusted models include additional adjustment for BMISDS prior to the intervention. BMISDS, body mass index standard deviation score; FFV, free fruit and vegetable; NFFV, no free fruit and vegetable; OR, odds ratio; OW/OB, overweight and obesity.

Population distributions

Fig 6 illustrates how the policy effect estimates from the pooled and most adjusted analyses reflect onto the population distribution of BMI and WC at 8.5 years. Shifts in the location of the distribution are small contrasted against the population variation. The bounded estimate based on the 95% CI shifted the median from a −0.07 kg/m2 reduction to a +0.33 kg/m2 increase. For WC this ranged from a reduction of 0.5 cm to an increase of 0.7 cm.

Fig 6. Model-based predictions for the FFV policy effect on the distribution of BMI (kg/m2) and waist circumference (cm) at 8.5 years.

Fig 6

Estimates use the point estimates and 95% confidence intervals to give a bounded prediction for the FFV effect. The estimates are from the +pre-intervention adjusted models in boys and girls. A kernel density smoother was used to illustrate the distribution. BMI, body mass index; FFV, free fruit and vegetable; NFFV, no free fruit and vegetable.

Discussion

Summary of findings

Overall, we observed little evidence that 1 to 2.5 years of exposure to a nationwide FFV policy in Norway had an appreciable benefit or unintended consequence among boys or girls with respect to childhood BMISDS, OW/OB, WC, or WtHR. There was some heterogeneity in the policy effect estimates in both directions at 8.5 years across cohorts, sex, and parental education although the results were inconsistent with other group comparisons, or with further adjustment for pre-policy BMI. Additionally, we observed little evidence for a policy effect at age 13 years in the cohort that had a longer duration of FFV exposure (4 years). There was a weak interaction with parental education in girls, suggesting a lower BMISDS and reduced odds of OW/OB at 13 years among girls who attended FFV schools and who had parents without a higher education; however, we were unable to further test this finding in another cohort.

Comparison with previous studies

A 2-year follow-up evaluation of a FFV program in Arkansas, US, showed a mean 0.17 z-score reduction in BMI among children exposed to the FFV program compared to strictly matched unexposed children, and a 3 percentage point reduction in school-level obesity as a result of the program [8]. While the confidence intervals from our pooled results overlap with their findings, we observed little evidence to support such a benefit in our sample. However, the Arkansas study was in a predominately low-income setting, reflecting a substantially different target population compared to our study. The prevalence of childhood OW/OB in Norway is approximately 16% [22] versus almost 40% in Arkansas, US [8], and children from all socioeconomic positions were targeted by the Norwegian policy. Further, the matched analysis in the Arkansas study addresses a different question: It seeks the policy effect in those eligible for the intervention, while ours is concerned with the policy effect in the whole population. These factors may explain some of the differences. Our lack of observed evidence for a benefit from the FFV policy is supported by a much smaller Norwegian intervention study evaluating the association of 1 school year of FFV provision in Norwegian schools with overweight [10,19].

Findings from a meta-analysis and a systematic review of RCTs indicate beneficial effects of FV consumption on weight outcomes [11,12]; however, the interventions evaluated are heterogenous in regard to complexity, setting, and/or target populations, e.g., those with chronic conditions [11]. Moreover, studies evaluating the effect of various dietary interventions and policies on childhood obesity usually include additional components beyond FV provision [15,2730]. Two recently published systematic reviews reported improvements in childhood BMI from school food environment interventions focusing on competitive food and beverage policies [29] and using clear and concise dietary guidelines [28], indicating that complex interventions and/or policies may benefit childhood obesity. Altogether, these studies include aspects that are beyond comparison to a nationwide FFV policy, which make them sufficiently different to be used as part of the evidence base to inform a FFV policy implementation compared to our study.

Interpretations

One explanation for the absence of a clear beneficial effect of the Norwegian FFV policy may be that exposed children did not substitute higher energy foods, such as unhealthy snacks, with FVs, which has previously been proposed as a possible pathway for weight loss [14,31]. This possibility is supported by findings reported after the first year of the Norwegian FFV policy indicating no substantial differences in the consumption of unhealthy energy-dense snacks, despite an increased odds of daily fruit consumption among adolescents (mean age 14.5 years) attending FFV schools compared to those attending NFFV schools [32]. On the other hand, when solely adding daily FVs to the diet without any compensatory behavior changes (e.g., eating less of other foods or increasing physical activity level), one might expect an increase in weight outcomes. However, FVs are generally low in energy, and providing 1 portion of fresh FVs each school day may not contribute to an excessive energy intake. Substitution and compensatory behavior changes in response to the FFV policy among some children but not others might result in no overall aggregated policy effect in the population, as suggested by our pooled estimates.

We anticipated confounding to act in the direction of weight gain due to the predominance of FFV schools in less population-dense areas that have slightly higher levels of OW/OB [22]. If results were biased in this direction, as for the most part our results suggest, it is reassuring that there was still no consistent evidence of unintended consequences from the FFV policy. Further, our upper bound prediction of the policy’s effect on the population distribution of BMI and WC would suggest that even in the worst-case scenario, a FFV policy is probably unlikely to cause a population shift of concern. Nonetheless, it should be mentioned that our stratified analysis showed an interaction of the FFV policy and parental education among boys suggesting an increased BMISDS and odds of OW/OB among boys of parents without higher education exposed to the FFV policy compared to those unexposed. This result was driven by the earliest born (2010) cohort. While healthier behavior patterns and changes to the obesogenic environment over time may explain this (see examples in Table A in S7 Text), the inconsistency of this result with our other comparisons and with our secondary analysis suggest chance or confounding as the most plausible explanation.

In the present study, even with the relatively large sample of 1,533 adolescents in the 2017 cohort who were exposed to the FFV policy for up to 4 years, few consistent reductions in weight outcomes were observed. The lack of observed associations with weight status may partly reflect the repeal of the FFV policy in 2014, meaning that, at the time of the 13-year measurement, 3 years had passed since FFV provision in school. However, analysis stratified by parental education among adolescents in the 2017 cohort indicated lower BMISDS and reduced odds of OW/OB among girls who attended FFV schools and who had parents without higher education, compared to unexposed girls. Norwegian girls generally report eating more fruit and berries than boys [33]. Additionally, a sufficiently long follow-up period could be of importance to detect possible effects on body weight from a FFV policy [34], which might explain this beneficial finding among girls of parents without higher education. Another Norwegian study reported significantly higher sustained fruit consumption among less-educated young women who in childhood had received 1 school year of FFV compared to controls [35]. Nonetheless, this result should be interpreted with caution and requires replication.

Implications and further work

FFV policies and programs have been shown to increase consumption of FVs [6,36] and may thereby improve nutrient intake and other health outcomes [37]. However, our findings question whether FFV policies and programs alone can be expected to reduce rates of childhood or adolescent OW/OB when causes of obesity are multifaceted [38]. One or 2 of the interactions between weight outcomes and parental education require further investigation, and we recommend that future studies that investigate nationwide policies should be population-wide and sufficiently powered to assess heterogeneity across boys and girls from different socioeconomic positions and across other more vulnerable subgroups. Studies should also be sufficiently large to detect small but potentially meaningful population-level effects on OW/OB outcomes. Including data on additional variables such as attitudes, values, and FV consumption at the individual level may aid the understanding of potential mechanisms of how FFV policies act. Additionally, as provision of FVs may contribute to promoting healthy eating habits, future work should evaluate whether a FFV policy contributes to longer-term healthy eating habits and thereby prevents OW/OB in adulthood [12].

Strengths and limitations

Although our study was nationwide, generalizability might be limited to countries with a similar prevalence of OW/OB [39]. The use of longitudinal data in the current study allowed the assessment of pre-intervention weight trajectories and the construction of a more plausible counterfactual to estimate the policy effect compared to difference-in-difference or cross-sectional designs used in similar previous evaluations [8,10]. The high-quality objective data, which were standardized and cleaned using a systematic approach [23], and the use of models that made use of all available outcome measures and handled the relatively small amount of missingness in a principled way, are also strengths. Further, we were also able to look at WC as an outcome, acknowledging that BMI has limitations as a marker of excess adiposity among children [40]. However, our sample size was insufficient to allow us to assess effects on obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2), which has a relatively low prevalence in Norwegian children [22]. We also lacked information on consumption of the FFVs that may have enhanced interpretation and translation of our findings.

The lack of a pre-registered protocol for our study may undermine findings even though little evidence for a policy effect was observed. Using the ROBINS-I tool [41], we assessed the potential overall risk of bias in our study to be moderate (details in S8 Text). Since we were unable to assume “as if” random allocation of the FFV policy, residual confounding is a key risk of bias, as is misclassification of exposure caused by some children attending both a FFV and NFFV school. However, the slopes of the pre-policy trajectories were for the most part quite similar, and the use of multiple cohorts and additional school information allowed us to draw stronger conclusions by assessing the consistency of the evidence from several sets of comparisons, each with the potential for different biases. A list of these comparisons, the secondary and sensitivity analyses that were done to check the robustness and consistency of results, and an assessment of potential biases are provided in S5 Table. The risk of bias due to other co-interventions was deemed low (see S7 Text), and checks of the robustness of the results to the choice of analysis strategy suggest that this was probably unlikely to have influenced our key findings (see S5 Table). There is inevitable bias compared to a well-controlled RCT; however, we do not predict this bias to be sufficient to alter our main conclusions.

Conclusion

We observed little evidence that exposure to a nationwide FFV policy had any notable beneficial effect or unintended consequence on weight status among Norwegian children and adolescents. While a nationwide FFV policy alone is unlikely to have a substantial impact on population childhood weight outcomes, given the benefits linked to enhanced nutrition, as documented in other studies, a national policy may have benefits for other aspects of health and dietary behavior without the unintended consequences that are a risk of such population-wide interventions.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. STROBE checklist of items included in “A nationwide school fruit and vegetable policy and childhood and adolescent overweight: A quasi-natural experimental study.”.

(DOCX)

S1 Fig. Schematic of the quasi-natural experimental design.

The dashed square indicates the period with the FFV policy; the squares indicate measurements in the NCGS (2010, 2012, and 2015) and NYGS (2017); and the dots indicate approximate (routine) measurements included in analysis. FFV, free fruit and vegetable; NCGS, Norwegian Childhood Growth Study; NYGS, Norwegian Youth Growth Study.

(DOCX)

S2 Fig. Plot of individual values used in the analysis samples of BMI in each cohort (2010, orange; 2015, green; 2017, brown).

BMI, body mass index.

(DOCX)

S3 Fig. Participant flow charts by cohort.

*Lost individuals are missing outcome. Pre-intervention BMI adjusted model. Adj, adjusted; BMI, body mass index; Educ, parental education; FFV, free fruit and vegetable; NFFV, no free fruit and vegetable; pop-den, population density; WC, waist circumference.

(DOCX)

S4 Fig. Predicted pre-intervention (2 to 5.5 years) trajectories of overweight (including obesity) in boys and girls who would attend a FFV (orange) versus a NFFV school (navy).

The marginal proportions in each cohort and pooled cohorts, and in the crude and adjusted models, are presented. FFV, free fruit and vegetable; NFFV, no free fruit and vegetable.

(DOCX)

S5 Fig. Secondary analysis showing estimates of the FFV policy effect excluding NFFV schools that took part in the parental paid subscription program on BMISDS, OW/OB, WC, and WtHR at 8.5 years.

(a) BMISDS; (b) OW/OB; (c) WC; (d) WtHR. Results are presented by sex and cohort (including pooled) and for each model. Expressed as the difference in outcome or OR versus the counterfactual (as estimated using the NFFV schools) with 95% CI. Analysis of BMISDS and OW/OB: Pooled models include terms for cohort (intercept and slope). Adjusted models include region, population density, and highest parental education (all intercept and slope). +Pre-intervention adjusted models additionally include adjustment for BMISDS prior to the intervention. Note: Pre-intervention slopes were constrained to be the same in each group for all models except for BMISDS in 2015 cohort girls. Analysis of WC and WtHR: Outcomes are from grade 3 only. Pooled models include a term for cohort. Adjusted models include region, population density, and highest parental education. BMISDS, body mass index standard deviation score; FFV, free fruit and vegetable; NFFV, no free fruit and vegetable; OR, odds ratio; OW/OB, overweight and obesity; WC, waist circumference; WtHR, waist to height ratio.

(DOCX)

S6 Fig. Secondary analysis showing estimates of the FFV policy effect excluding NFFV schools that took part in the parental paid subscription program on BMISDS, OW/OB, WC, and WtHR at 8.5 years, stratified by highest parental education level.

(a) BMISDS; (b) OW/OB; (c) WC; (d) WtHR. Results are presented by sex, cohort (including pooled), and parental education for each model. Expressed as the difference in outcome or OR versus the counterfactual (as estimated using the NFFV schools) with 95% CI. The p-values are from a Wald test of the interaction between parental education and FFV. Analysis of BMISDS and OW/OB: Pooled models include terms for cohort (intercept and slope). Adjusted models include region and population density (all intercept and slope). +Pre-intervention adjusted models additionally include adjustment for BMISDS prior to the intervention. Analysis of WC and WtHR: Outcomes are from grade 3 only. Pooled models include a term for cohort. Adjusted models include region and population density. BMISDS, body mass index standard deviation score; FFV, free fruit and vegetable; NFFV, no free fruit and vegetable; OR, odds ratio; OW/OB, overweight and obesity; WC, waist circumference; WtHR, waist to height ratio.

(DOCX)

S7 Fig. Estimates of the school fruit and vegetable subscription program (paid versus not paid) on BMISDS, OW/OB, WC, and WtHR at 8.5 years, stratified by highest parental education level.

(a) BMISDS; (b) OW/OB; (c) WC; (d) WtHR. Results are presented by cohort (including pooled) and parental education for each model. Expressed as the difference in outcome or OR versus the counterfactual (as estimated using the NFFV schools without the subscription program) with 95% CI. The p-values are from a Wald test of the interaction between parental education and the subscription program. Analysis of BMISDS and OW/OB: Pooled models include terms for cohort (intercept and slope). Adjusted models include region and population density (all intercept and slope). +Pre-intervention adjusted models additionally include adjustment for BMISDS prior to the intervention. Analysis of WC and WtHR: Outcomes are from grade 3 only. Pooled models include a term for cohort. Adjusted models include region and population density. BMISDS, body mass index standard deviation score; NFFV, no free fruit and vegetable; OR, odds ratio; OW/OB, overweight and obesity; WC, waist circumference; WtHR, waist to height ratio.

(DOCX)

S8 Fig. Secondary analysis showing estimates of the FFV policy effect excluding NFFV schools that took part in the parental paid subscription program on BMISDS and OW/OB at age 13 years.

(a) BMISDS; (b) OW/OB. Results are presented by sex for each model and expressed as the difference in outcome or OR versus the counterfactual at 13 years (as estimated using the NFFV schools) with 95% CI. Note that data are from the 2017 cohort only. Crude model has no adjustment. Adjusted models include region, population density, and highest parental education (intercept and slopes); +Pre-intervention adjusted models include additional adjustment for BMISDS prior to the intervention. BMISDS, body mass index standard deviation score; FFV, free fruit and vegetable; NFFV, no free fruit and vegetable; OR, odds ratio; OW/OB, overweight and obesity.

(DOCX)

S9 Fig. Secondary analysis showing estimates of the FFV policy effect excluding NFFV schools that took part in the parental paid subscription program on BMISDS and OW/OB at age 13 years, stratified by highest parental education level.

(a) BMISDS; (b) OW/OB. Results are presented by sex and parental education for each model. Expressed as the difference in outcome or OR versus the counterfactual (as estimated using the NFFV schools) with 95% CI. The p-values are from a Wald test of the interaction between parental education and FFV. Note that data are from the 2017 cohort only. Adjusted models include terms for region and population density (intercept and slopes). +Pre-intervention adjusted models include additional adjustment for BMISDS prior to the intervention. BMISDS, body mass index standard deviation score; FFV, free fruit and vegetable; NFFV, no free fruit and vegetable; OR, odds ratio; OW/OB, overweight and obesity.

(DOCX)

S1 Table. Frequencies of schools, children, and observations by county illustrating the hierarchical data structure of the 3 longitudinal cohorts (pooled) based on the analysis sample.

Region and county at recruitment. FFV, free fruit and vegetable; NFFV, no free fruit and vegetable; Obs, observations.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Description of individuals included in the analysis of outcomes at age 8.5 (third grade) by attendance at a FFV school in each cohort and pooled across cohorts.

*NFFV: Individuals who did not attend a school with FFV provision. FFV ≥ 1 year: Individuals who attended a school with FFV provision at least 1 year. In third grade. Of individuals attending NFFV schools, proportion who attended a school offering the paid fruit and vegetable subscription program. §Parental education prior to possible exposure (when the child was 4 years old). ªThese cohorts had longitudinal data and were pooled in the analysis of BMISDS and OW/OB. BMISDS, body mass index standard deviation score; FFV, free fruit and vegetable; NA, not applicable; NFFV, no free fruit and vegetable; OW/OB, overweight and obesity; Paid-sub, individuals attending schools offering the parental paid subscription program; SD, standard deviation.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Estimated differences in pre-intervention (2 to 5.5 years) trajectories of BMISDS in boys and girls who would attend a FFV versus a NFFV school.

Differences in slope from 2 to 5.5 years and in BMISDS at 5.5 years in each cohort and pooled cohorts, and in the crude and adjusted models, are presented. Crude pooled models include adjustment for cohort (intercept and slope). All models include a random intercept for school and random coefficients for child. Adjusted models include region, population density, and highest parental education (intercept and slope); pooled adjusted models also include terms for cohort (intercept and slope). All models include random intercepts for school and random coefficients for child. aDifference in slope (BMISDS per year): FFV minus NFFV. bDifference in BMISDS at 5.5 years: FFV minus NFFV. BMISDS, body mass index standard deviation score; FFV, free fruit and vegetable; NFFV, no free fruit and vegetable.

(DOCX)

S4 Table. Odds ratios comparing pre-intervention (age 2 to 5.5 years) trajectories of overweight including obesity in boys and girls who would attend a FFV versus a NFFV school.

The ORs compare the slopes of the log odds of OW/OB from age 2 to 5.5 years and the odds of OW/OB at age 5.5 years (pre-intervention age). Crude pooled models include adjustment for cohort (intercept and slope). All models include a random intercept for school and child. Adjusted models include region, population density, and highest parental education (intercept and slope); pooled adjusted models also include terms for cohort (intercept and slope). All models include random intercepts for school and child. aOR comparing slopes of log odds (log odds per year) of overweight: FFV/NFFV. bOR comparing log odds of overweight at 5.5 years (pre-intervention): FFV/NFFV. FFV, free fruit and vegetable; NFFV, no free fruit and vegetable; OR, odds ratio.

(DOCX)

S5 Table. Summary of some of the analyses that were performed to check robustness and consistency of results.

(DOCX)

S1 Text. Standardizing the BMI outcome (BMI standard deviation scores).

(DOCX)

S2 Text. Exposure to FFV policy classification.

(DOCX)

S3 Text. Longitudinal estimation of the FFV policy effect.

(DOCX)

S4 Text. Regional patterning of combined elementary and secondary (FFV) and elementary-only schools (NFFV).

(DOCX)

S5 Text. Directed acyclic graph.

(DOCX)

S6 Text. Sensitivity analysis with different classifications of parental education.

(DOCX)

S7 Text. National policy initiatives and co-interventions occurring over the time frame of the study.

(DOCX)

S8 Text. ROBINS-I tool for risk of bias in non-randomized comparisons.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

Jørgen Meisfjord contributed with expertise regarding sampling, and Ingvild Bokn oversaw data collection of the NYGS. Tore Angelsen at the Norwegian Fruit and Vegetable Marketing Board provided valuable information regarding provision of FVs in schools. We are particularly grateful to the school health nurses for collection of data and to all the participants.

Abbreviations

BMI

body mass index

BMISDS

body mass index standard deviation score

DAG

directed acyclic graph

FFV

free fruit and vegetable

FV

fruit and vegetable

MLM

multilevel model

NCGS

Norwegian Childhood Growth Study

NFFV

no free fruit and vegetable

NYGS

Norwegian Youth Growth Study

OR

odds ratio

OW/OB

overweight and obesity

RCT

randomized controlled trial

WC

waist circumference

WtHR

waist to height ratio

Data Availability

Data cannot be shared publicly because of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as it contains personal data which is potentially identifying participant data. The Personal Data Regulations and Health Research Act (§ 7) in Norway and GDPR in the EU restrict sharing of these data. The Norwegian Institute of Public Health administer the main data used in this study. External researchers can apply for access to indirectly identifiable data based on appropriate legal bases for processing the data in accordance with GDPR Article 6(1) and 9(2). To apply for access to the data: https://www.fhi.no/en/more/access-to-data/applying-for-access-to-data/. For more information about access to the data used in this study or questions regarding data requests: https://www.fhi.no/div/helseundersokelser/vekstkohorten/tilgang-til-data-fra-vekstkohorten/ (website in Norwegian) or contact vekstkohorten@fhi.no.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Norwegian Research Council (grant number 260408/H10). Authors AKW at the University of Bristol, United Kingdom; EB at the University of Agder, Norway; and PM at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health received funding from the Norwegian Research Council. The Norwegian Research Council had no role in the design, analysis or writing of this article.

References

  • 1.Rose K, O’Malley C, Eskandari F, Lake AA, Brown L, Ells LJ. The impact of, and views on, school food intervention and policy in young people aged 11–18 years in Europe: a mixed methods systematic review. Obes Rev. 2021;22(5):e13186. doi: 10.1111/obr.13186 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.World Health Organization. Assessing the existing evidence base on school food and nutrition policies: a scoping review. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.European Commission. School scheme explained. Brussels: European Commission; 2021. [cited 2021 Jun 6]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/market-measures/school-fruit-vegetables-and-milk-scheme/school-scheme-explained_en. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Watson R. European Commission plans free fruit and vegetable scheme in schools. BMJ. 2008;337:a829. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a829 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.European Commission EU school scheme: €250 million for fruit, vegetables and milk for the school year 2020/21. Brussels: European Commission; 2021 [cited 2021 Jun 6]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/eu-school-scheme-eu250-million-fruit-vegetables-and-milk-school-year-2020-2021-2020-mar-31_en.
  • 6.Fogarty AW, Antoniak M, Venn AJ, Davies L, Goodwin A, Salfield N, et al. Does participation in a population-based dietary intervention scheme have a lasting impact on fruit intake in young children? Int J Epidemiol. 2007;36(5):1080–5. doi: 10.1093/ije/dym133 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Olsho LE, Klerman JA, Ritchie L, Wakimoto P, Webb KL, Bartlett S. Increasing child fruit and vegetable intake: findings from the US Department of Agriculture Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2015;115(8):1283–90. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2014.12.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Qian Y, Nayga RM, Thomsen JMR, Rouse HL. The effect of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program on childhood obesity. Appl Econ Perspect Policy. 2016;38(2):260–75. doi: 10.1093/aepp/ppv017 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Methner S, Maschkowski G, Hartmann M. The European School Fruit Scheme: impact on children’s fruit and vegetable consumption in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. Public Health Nutr. 2017;20(3):542–8. doi: 10.1017/S1368980016002652 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bere E, Klepp KI, Overby NC. Free school fruit: can an extra piece of fruit every school day contribute to the prevention of future weight gain? A cluster randomized trial. Food Nutr Res. 2014. Aug 11. doi: 10.3402/fnr.v58.23194 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Arnotti K, Bamber M. Fruit and vegetable consumption in overweight or obese individuals: a meta-analysis. West J Nurs Res. 2020;42(4):306–14. doi: 10.1177/0193945919858699 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Guyenet SJ. Impact of whole, fresh fruit consumption on energy intake and adiposity: a systematic review. Front Nutr. 2019;6:66. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2019.00066 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Brunello G, De Paola M, Labartino G. More apples fewer chips? The effect of school fruit schemes on the consumption of junk food. Health Policy. 2014;118(1):114–26. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.03.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Overby NC, Klepp KI, Bere E. Introduction of a school fruit program is associated with reduced frequency of consumption of unhealthy snacks. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012;96(5):1100–3. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.111.033399 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Williams AJ, Henley WE, Williams CA, Hurst AJ, Logan S, Wyatt KM. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between childhood overweight and obesity and primary school diet and physical activity policies. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013;10:101. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-10-101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Rankin J, Matthews L, Cobley S, Han A, Sanders R, Wiltshire HD, et al. Psychological consequences of childhood obesity: psychiatric comorbidity and prevention. Adolesc Health Med Ther. 2016;7:125–46. doi: 10.2147/AHMT.S101631 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Reilly JJ, Methven E, McDowell ZC, Hacking B, Alexander D, Stewart L, et al. Health consequences of obesity. Arch Dis Child. 2003;88(9):748–52. doi: 10.1136/adc.88.9.748 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Sommer A, Twig G. The impact of childhood and adolescent obesity on cardiovascular risk in adulthood: a systematic review. Curr Diab Rep. 2018;18(10):91. doi: 10.1007/s11892-018-1062-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Stea TH, Tveter ET, Te Velde SJ, Vik FN, Klepp KI, Bere E. The effect of an extra piece of fruit or vegetables at school on weight status in two generations—14 years follow-up of the Fruit and Vegetables Makes the Marks study. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(10):e0205498. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205498 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.de Vocht F, Katikireddi SV, McQuire C, Tilling K, Hickman M, Craig P. Conceptualising natural and quasi experiments in public health. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21(1):32. doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01224-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Biehl A, Hovengen R, Groholt EK, Hjelmesaeth J, Strand BH, Meyer HE. Adiposity among children in Norway by urbanity and maternal education: a nationally representative study. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:842. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-842 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ovrebo B, Bergh IH, Stea TH, Bere E, Suren P, Magnus PM, et al. Overweight, obesity, and thinness among a nationally representative sample of Norwegian adolescents and changes from childhood: associations with sex, region, and population density. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(8):e0255699. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255699 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Wills AK. Screening & diagnosing errors in longitudinal measures of body size. medRxiv. 2020. Nov 19. doi: 10.1101/2020.11.19.20234872 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Royston P. Calculation of unconditional and conditional reference intervals for foetal size and growth from longitudinal measurements. Stat Med. 1995;14(13):1417–36. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780141303 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Cole TJ, Lobstein T. Extended international (IOTF) body mass index cut-offs for thinness, overweight and obesity. Pediatr Obes. 2012;7(4):284–94. doi: 10.1111/j.2047-6310.2012.00064.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lopez Bernal J, Cummins S, Gasparrini A. The use of controls in interrupted time series studies of public health interventions. Int J Epidemiol. 2018;47(6):2082–93. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyy135 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.de Sa J, Lock K. Will European agricultural policy for school fruit and vegetables improve public health? A review of school fruit and vegetable programmes. Eur J Public Health. 2008;18(6):558–68. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckn061 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Pineda E, Bascunan J, Sassi F. Improving the school food environment for the prevention of childhood obesity: what works and what doesn’t. Obes Rev. 2021;22(2):e13176. doi: 10.1111/obr.13176 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Bramante CT, Thornton RLJ, Bennett WL, Zhang A, Wilson RF, Bass EB, et al. Systematic review of natural experiments for childhood obesity prevention and control. Am J Prev Med. 2019;56(1):147–58. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2018.08.023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Capogrossi K, You W. The influence of school nutrition programs on the weight of low-income children: a treatment effect analysis. Health Econ. 2017;26(8):980–1000. doi: 10.1002/hec.3378 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Bayer O, Nehring I, Bolte G, von Kries R. Fruit and vegetable consumption and BMI change in primary school-age children: a cohort study. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2014;68(2):265–70. doi: 10.1038/ejcn.2013.139 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hovdenak IM, Bere E, Stea TH. Time trends (1995–2008) in dietary habits among adolescents in relation to the Norwegian school fruit scheme: the HUNT study. Nutr J. 2019;18(1):77. doi: 10.1186/s12937-019-0501-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Brooke Hansen L, Myhre J, Johansen A, Paulsen M, Andersen J. Ungkost 3. Landsomfattende kostholdsundersøkelse blant elever i 4. og 8. klasse i Norge, 2015. Oslo: Folkehelseinstituttet, 2015 [cited 2021 Dec 18]. Available from: https://www.fhi.no/globalassets/dokumenterfiler/rapporter/2017/ungkost-3-rapport-blant-9-og-13-aringer_endeligversjon-12-01-17.pdf. doi: 10.1037/tra0000090 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Driessen CE, Cameron AJ, Thornton LE, Lai SK, Barnett LM. Effect of changes to the school food environment on eating behaviours and/or body weight in children: a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2014;15(12):968–82. doi: 10.1111/obr.12224 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Stea TH, Hovdenak IM, Ronnestad J, Rennestraum K, Vik FN, Klepp KI, et al. Effects of 1 y of free school fruit on intake of fruits, vegetables, and unhealthy snacks: 14 y later. Am J Clin Nutr. 2018;108(6):1309–15. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqy243 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Bere E, Hilsen M, Klepp KI. Effect of the nationwide free school fruit scheme in Norway. Br J Nutr. 2010;104(4):589–94. doi: 10.1017/S0007114510000814 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Wallace TC, Bailey RL, Blumberg JB, Burton-Freeman B, Chen CO, Crowe-White KM, et al. Fruits, vegetables, and health: a comprehensive narrative, umbrella review of the science and recommendations for enhanced public policy to improve intake. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2020;60(13):2174–211. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2019.1632258 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Hruby A, Hu FB. The epidemiology of obesity: a big picture. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(7):673–89. doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0243-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Garrido-Miguel M, Cavero-Redondo I, Alvarez-Bueno C, Rodriguez-Artalejo F, Moreno LA, Ruiz JR, et al. Prevalence and trends of overweight and obesity in European children from 1999 to 2016: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2019;173:e192430. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.2430 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Javed A, Jumean M, Murad MH, Okorodudu D, Kumar S, Somers VK, et al. Diagnostic performance of body mass index to identify obesity as defined by body adiposity in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatr Obes. 2015;10(3):234–44. doi: 10.1111/ijpo.242 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Sterne JA, Hernan MA, Reeves BC, Savovic J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4919 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Callam Davidson

22 Sep 2021

Dear Dr Øvrebø,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "No strong evidence of benefits or unintended consequences on BMI or overweight from a nationwide school fruit and vegetable policy: a quasi-natural experimental study" for consideration by PLOS Medicine.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Medicine editorial staff as well as by an academic editor with relevant expertise and I am writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review.

However, before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

Please re-submit your manuscript within two working days, i.e. by Sep 24 2021 11:59PM.

Login to Editorial Manager here: https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. Once your manuscript has passed all checks it will be sent out for review.

Feel free to email us at plosmedicine@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Callam Davidson

Associate Editor

PLOS Medicine

Decision Letter 1

Callam Davidson

15 Oct 2021

Dear Dr. Øvrebø,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "No strong evidence of benefits or unintended consequences on BMI or overweight from a nationwide school fruit and vegetable policy: a quasi-natural experimental study" (PMEDICINE-D-21-04001R1) for consideration at PLOS Medicine.

Your paper was evaluated by an associate editor and discussed among all the editors here. It was also discussed with an academic editor with relevant expertise, and sent to independent reviewers, including a statistical reviewer. The reviews are appended at the bottom of this email and any accompanying reviewer attachments can be seen via the link below:

[LINK]

In light of these reviews, I am afraid that we will not be able to accept the manuscript for publication in the journal in its current form, but we would like to consider a revised version that addresses the reviewers' and editors' comments. We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response, and we plan to seek re-review by one or more of the reviewers.

In revising the manuscript for further consideration, your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer and the editors. Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper. In your rebuttal letter you should indicate your response to the reviewers' and editors' comments, the changes you have made in the manuscript, and include either an excerpt of the revised text or the location (eg: page and line number) where each change can be found. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file; a version with changes marked should be uploaded as a marked up manuscript.

In addition, we request that you upload any figures associated with your paper as individual TIF or EPS files with 300dpi resolution at resubmission; please read our figure guidelines for more information on our requirements: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/figures. While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the PACE digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at PLOSMedicine@plos.org.

We hope to receive your revised manuscript by Nov 05 2021 11:59PM. Please email us (plosmedicine@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns.

***Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.***

We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement, making sure to declare all competing interests. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. If new competing interests are declared later in the revision process, this may also hold up the submission. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT. You can see our competing interests policy here: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/competing-interests.

Please use the following link to submit the revised manuscript:

https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine/

Your article can be found in the "Submissions Needing Revision" folder.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information for obtaining the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Callam Davidson,

Associate Editor

PLOS Medicine

plosmedicine.org

-----------------------------------------------------------

Requests from the editors:

Please revise your title according to PLOS Medicine's style. Your title must be nondeclarative. It should begin with main concept if possible. "Effect of" should be used only if causality can be inferred, i.e., for an RCT. Please place the study design in the subtitle (ie, after a colon). See PLOS Medicine's website for examples: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/

Please update your Data Availability Statement to remove ‘for non-Norwegians’, as the URL provided appears to contain information aimed at both those that do and those that do not hold a Norwegian electronic ID (if I have understood correctly).

In the Abstract Methods and Findings please include the important dependent variables that are adjusted for in the main analyses.

Please begin the last sentence of the Abstract Methods and Findings section: ‘The main limitations of this study are…’.

In your Abstract Conclusions, please address the study implications without overreaching what can be concluded from the data; the phrase "In this study, we observed ..." may be useful, given that the study has an observational design.

At this stage, we ask that you include a short, non-technical Author Summary of your research to make findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. The Author Summary should immediately follow the Abstract in your revised manuscript. This text is subject to editorial change and should be distinct from the scientific abstract. Please see our author guidelines for more information: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript#loc-author-summary

Please confirm that informed consent (provided by parents/guardians) was written (rather than oral) for all of the involved cohorts (the current manuscript suggests this was the case but it would be useful to have a short sentence confirming).

Thank you for including the completed STROBE checklist as Supporting Information. Please add the following statement, or similar, to the Methods: "This study is reported as per the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline (S1 Checklist)."

Please update the STROBE checklist to use section and paragraph numbers, rather than page numbers.

Did your study have a prospective protocol or analysis plan? Please state this (either way) early in the Methods section.

a) If a prospective analysis plan (from your funding proposal, IRB or other ethics committee submission, study protocol, or other planning document written before analyzing the data) was used in designing the study, please include the relevant prospectively written document with your revised manuscript as a Supporting Information file to be published alongside your study, and cite it in the Methods section. A legend for this file should be included at the end of your manuscript.

b) If no such document exists, please make sure that the Methods section transparently describes when analyses were planned, and when/why any data-driven changes to analyses took place.

c) In either case, changes in the analysis-- including those made in response to peer review comments-- should be identified as such in the Methods section of the paper, with rationale.

Please remove the Authors’ contributions, Data availability, Funding, and Conflicts of Interest sections from the end of the main text. In the event of publication, this information will be published as metadata based on your responses to the relevant questions in the submission form.

Please relocate your Ethics approval section from the end of the main text to the Methods.

Comments from the reviewers:

Reviewer #1: The authors estimate the impact of a policy to provide free fruit and vegetables (FFV) at school meals in Norway on outcomes related to adiposity and weight distribution. FFV programs were nonrandomly allocated and for causal inference the authors use longitudinal observational methods with correction for some potential confounding variables. These methods do not detect an impact of FFV policy exposure on BMI, odds of OW/OB, or waist circumference. I feel strongly that it is important to publish null findings, so I have no concerns about that. I am only superficially familiar with the methods used in this analysis and so will rely on the statistical reviewer for a more detailed review in that regard.

1) My main constructive critique is that the analysis appears not to exclude the possibility of meaningful effects on the odds of OB/OW, especially in the cohort with longest exposure where the estimate appears imprecise. In general, the estimates do not appear precise enough to exclude meaningful effects. I think this is something that could be mostly addressed via revision of the text. It is rarely possible to demonstrate a true null; what is possible is to exclude effect sizes of a certain magnitude. I think the paper should acknowledge that the analysis does not exclude potentially meaningful effect sizes and is not necessarily a failure to replicate previous positive findings (in the sense that 95% CIs overlap considerably), and address this point quantitatively. What size effects can be reasonably excluded by this analysis, and what size effects cannot be excluded? Discussion of this, and the uncertainty of interpretation it implies, would be helpful.

2) My second constructive critique is that I am not as convinced as the authors that the conclusions are at a low risk of being impacted by bias, as reflected in the abstract: "Residual confounding and exposure misclassification are the main threats to the validity of our estimates but are unlikely to be of sufficient magnitude to affect our conclusions". Measurement and categorization of potential confounding variables tends to be crude (e.g., dichotomizing educational status), and the number of potential confounding variables included is limited (e.g., economic status is not directly considered). I'm not knowledgeable enough about the methods used in this study to form a strong opinion on this, but based on the information presented and my general familiarity with this class of methods, I'll say I'm skeptical of the assertion that the risk of bias is low. For example, the ORs for the pre-intervention trajectories of OB/OW in table S7 have confidence intervals that include the possibility of substantial differences (e.g., 0.75 to 1.20), suggesting that it is possible that OB/OW risk trajectories in the intervention children were not well matched with controls. Perhaps the statistical reviewer can contribute an opinion on this, but my opinion is that the assertions of low risk of bias should be removed or softened.

More detailed comments, including some related to the above, are below:

3) I see no evidence that the study was preregistered. This increases risk of bias. While I am less concerned about this due to the null primary outcome, it does undermine the internal validity of the findings.

4) The analyses included 6619 to 7810 children, and only a minority of those were in the FFV group (21% in table 1). How much power did this analysis have to detect significant and quantitatively meaningful effects on BMI and OB/OW? What is the likelihood that the finding is null because the sample size is too small? I would expect that if this intervention is effective, the effect size would be quite small. I wouldn't expect offering F/V to children at school to have a large impact on BMI. I see that the 95% confidence intervals around the estimated odds ratios for OB/OW are quite wide, for example in figure 2b and especially figure 4b. This raises the question of whether the underlying data are up to the task of detecting a plausible (presumably small) effect size.

5) This is not a critique, just a comment. The theory of change for this intervention leaves several opportunities for the program to fail to impact OB/OW. Policy enacted -> F/V provided -> F/V consumed -> F/V displace more energy-dense foods -> total energy intake declines -> lower BMI. I don't find it surprising that effect size on OB would be small or zero.

6) It is a significant weakness that the data do not include a measure of the impact of the intervention on F/V consumption. This isn't strictly required since the objective of the study is to evaluate the policy, but it does complicate interpretation. I think this should be mentioned more prominently, perhaps in the abstract.

7) "Parental education was used as an indicator for socioeconomic position. We used the highest parental education (from either mother or father) prior to the policy exposure when the children were four years old." This seems like a crude measure of SES, especially since the measure was binary (higher+ vs. <higher). It seems like the measure of geographic location may also be crude, although I don't know enough about Norway to assess this with confidence. Only four locations were considered: North; Mid; West; and South-East. I would expect substantial variation in population characteristics by location within these large geographic regions. Categorization of populations into urban, semi-urban, and rural seems reasonable.

8) Concerns about possible confounding are heightened by the following: "Allocation of the FFV policy could not be considered 'as if' random. Combined (FFV) schools are more likely to be in areas of lower population density compared to pure elementary (NFFV) schools and are thus more common in rural regions of Norway such as the North (see S4 Text and S5 Table)" Table 1 also indicates differences in region and education level between FFV and NFFV groups. The authors adjust for measured confounders but clearly the populations being compared are not the same. The authors acknowledge this and attempt to adjust for it, but I think they are perhaps too confident that the conclusions are not affected by it, given the limitations of how possible confounders were measured and categorized.

9) In figure 1, I believe the bottom two pooled graphs are mislabeled as boys.

10) Figure 6 is nice. I like seeing the full distributions. It's somewhat hard to see the lines though.

11) The discussion says (509-512) "A two-year follow-up evaluation of the FV program in Arkansas US, showed a mean 0.17 z-score reduction in BMI among children exposed to the FFV program compared to strictly matched unexposed children, and also a three percentage point reduction in school-level obesity as a result of the program [8]. We found no evidence to support such a benefit." This is accurate, but unless I misunderstood something, the current study may not have been able to detect an effect size of this magnitude (especially the older cohort with longer exposure). If baseline OB/OW prevalence is 40% and F/V reduced it to 37%, that's an OR of 0.88 ((40/60) / (37/63)), which appears to be within or close to the 95% CIs of the current study. So it may be misleading to frame this as a failure of replication. I think this is doubly true if one considers that the 95% CI of the two estimates probably overlap quite a bit. This point should be discussed. I see that in the Arkansas study, the sample size of the intervention group was not especially large, but they went to greater lengths to match intervention and control subjects. This may have yielded greater power to detect a smaller effect.

Thank you,

Stephan J Guyenet

Reviewer #2: Manuscript PMEDICINE-D-21-04001R1 with title "No strong evidence of benefits or unintended consequences on BMI or overweight from a nationwide school fruit and vegetable policy: a quasi-natural experimental study" provides an interesting study on secular trends of overweight among adolescents in Norway and explores whether a free fruit program had any effects. Authors applied very sophisticated and robust modelling for their study. Basically their findings show that having a national policy on school fruit and vegetables does not affect BMI. It is good practice to publish non significant results of public health nutrition interventions.

What I miss from this paper is a more thorough multidisciplinary discussion. It is a pity that data is already collected, and I am not asking for this, however, it is key to note that it would have benefited from more variables e.g. attitudes or values. Results are not well explained/discussed, although they could have been better explained if e.g. focus groups or interviews would have been performed, or additional consumer-relevant information would have been collected together with the food intake and anthropometric measurements. The confounding in such studies is large, and authors do not mention what kind of recommendations are usual at that age, or the determinants of food choices among adolescents, or the environmental cues in Norway. Have there been any behaviour interventions accompanying the availability change? Was there any special recommendation or social marketing campaigns to support the F&V intake? Authors have not addressed such common sense issues. Additionally, changing eating behaviour is a huge societal challenge, it is difficult, deserves full attention and it should be addressed in a comprehensive manner. This paper simply shows that increasing availability of fruits and vegetables does not affect body weight, which is somehow expected, but it fails to provide a more in depth consideration of the many other factors that affect food choice.

The paper is nice to read, very good specialist material, high level statistics, but lacks comprehensiveness.

Reviewer #3: This is a well-conducted study on the impact of a nationwide school fruit and vegetable policy on BMI or overweight of school children in Norway. The study design, datasets, and statistical methods and analyses are mostly adequate. The adjustement for confunding factors is key for the design of a quasi-natural experimental study and the authors addressed this well by adjusting adequately for region, population density, cohort, and parental education. However, there are still a few major issues needing attention especially on presentation of the results.

1) Overall the presentation of the results is a bit all over the place with too much technical details which became difficult to focus and follow. Many tables and figures could be put into supplementary information and only need briefly summarised in the main text. For example, table 1 is a huge table with too many details which is not very informative. Can either remove table 1 to supplementary or make it concise with key messages. Table 2 on pre-intervention can be remove to supplementary information as it's not key outcome. The same for Figure 3. It's only on a subgroup analysis but huge with many plots so can be removed to supplementary info.

2) Table 1. There are 4 cohorts but why pooled results only with 3 cohorts? Throughout the paper, especially in Figure 2, there are different combination of 3 of 4 cohorts analysed and pooled, which is a bit difficult to follow. Authors need to make the analyses consistent and neat. If not, please explain why and also what's the impact of using different cohorts on the analyses? Any bias or limitation?

3) The section of Population distributions and also Figure 6 can be removed to supplementary info as not key at all.

4) The paper could be improved to be more focused and concise with key messages presented. At the moment, the readers are overwhelmed with huge and complex tables and figures and technical details, many of which could be better placed in supplementary information. At the moment, there are so many outcomes and analyses presented but could authors consider if they can be classified/identified as primary or secondary outcomes so that the paper is focused on the key messages.

5) Figure 2 is a key figure. As the different cohorts have different time exposoure to FFV policy, have the pooled results been adjusted for this exposure difference in the analyses?

6) Missing data and children transferred between types of schools. Need a section specifically on the above issues on the details of missingness and ways to deal with the missingness and discussion of potential biases. It seems missing data were simply removed from the analyses but do we know the pattern of the missingness and what is the potential bias by excluding this missing data?

Any attachments provided with reviews can be seen via the following link:

[LINK]

Decision Letter 2

Callam Davidson

25 Nov 2021

Dear Dr. Øvrebø,

Thank you very much for re-submitting your manuscript "A nationwide school fruit and vegetable policy and childhood and adolescent overweight: A quasi-natural experimental study" (PMEDICINE-D-21-04001R2) for review by PLOS Medicine.

I have discussed the paper with my colleagues and the academic editor and it was also seen again by two reviewers. I am pleased to say that provided the remaining editorial and production issues are dealt with we are planning to accept the paper for publication in the journal.

The remaining issues that need to be addressed are listed at the end of this email. Any accompanying reviewer attachments can be seen via the link below. Please take these into account before resubmitting your manuscript:

[LINK]

***Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.***

In revising the manuscript for further consideration here, please ensure you address the specific points made by each reviewer and the editors. In your rebuttal letter you should indicate your response to the reviewers' and editors' comments and the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file. A version with changes marked must also be uploaded as a marked up manuscript file.

Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper. If you haven't already, we ask that you provide a short, non-technical Author Summary of your research to make findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. The Author Summary should immediately follow the Abstract in your revised manuscript. This text is subject to editorial change and should be distinct from the scientific abstract.

We hope to receive your revised manuscript within 1 week. Please email us (plosmedicine@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns.

We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT.

Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information for obtaining the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript.

Please note, when your manuscript is accepted, an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you've already opted out via the online submission form. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online or are unsure if you have already indicated as such, please let the journal staff know immediately at plosmedicine@plos.org.

If you have any questions in the meantime, please contact me or the journal staff on plosmedicine@plos.org.  

We look forward to receiving the revised manuscript by Dec 02 2021 11:59PM.   

Sincerely,

Callam Davidson,

Associate Editor 

PLOS Medicine

plosmedicine.org

------------------------------------------------------------

Requests from Editors:

Please check and update the URLs in your Data Availability Statement, as both lead to pages that no longer exist.

In your abstract, please quantify your main findings with 95% CI and p values (where appropriate).

Line 52: Please update to ‘The main limitations of this study are the potential for residual confounding and exposure misclassification, despite efforts to minimise their impact on conclusions’.

Line 67: This bullet can be deleted.

Line 69: Please update to ‘To promote a healthy diet, from 2007 to 2014 a nationwide free fruit and vegetable policy ensured a daily piece of free fruit or vegetable was available to all children in Norwegian combined schools (covering grades 1-10)’.

Please also consider including the age group covered by Norwegian combined schools, as grade age boundaries will differ between countries.

Line 71: Please update to ‘Studies on the potential benefits or consequences of such fruit and vegetable policies are important in improving public health efforts to tackle childhood overweight and obesity’.

Line 81: Delete the sentence beginning ‘Data are from’ and instead relocate this to the start of the following bullet such that it reads ‘Using data from 11215 Norwegian children and early adolescents, we observed little…’

Line 143: ‘We did not register’.

Line 196: Please update to ‘Other data’

In Figures 3 and 5, please use the legend to denote which statistical test was used to derive the p values.

Please also check supplementary figures in light of the comment above.

Line 578: Update ‘little’ to ‘few’.

Line 661: The ‘Ethics approval’ section can be removed as it is now redundant.

References 3 and 5: Please include (date accessed: DD/MM/YYYY).

Reference 41 contains unnecessary COI information, please remove this.

Please ensure all journal abbreviations in the references are consistent with those found in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) databases.

Please update your STROBE checklist to use section and paragraph numbers as opposed to page numbers (which are liable to change during the publication process).

Comments from Reviewers:

Reviewer #1: The authors adequately addressed my concerns. I agree with the authors that post-hoc power analysis would not be informative. Thank you,

Stephan J Guyenet

Reviewer #3: Thanks authors for their great effort to improve the manuscript. I am satisfied with the response and revision. No further issues needing attention.

Any attachments provided with reviews can be seen via the following link:

[LINK]

Decision Letter 3

Callam Davidson

1 Dec 2021

Dear Dr Øvrebø, 

On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Dr Barry Popkin, I am pleased to inform you that we have agreed to publish your manuscript "A nationwide school fruit and vegetable policy and childhood and adolescent overweight: A quasi-natural experimental study" (PMEDICINE-D-21-04001R3) in PLOS Medicine.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. Please be aware that it may take several days for you to receive this email; during this time no action is required by you. Once you have received these formatting requests, please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes.

When making the formatting changes, please also make the following update:

* Line 91: Please correct 'polices' to 'policies'.

In the meantime, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production process. 

PUBLICATION SCHEDULE

Given our busy publication schedule for the remainder of 2021, we are planning to publish your paper in early 2022 (the exact date will be communicated to you once confirmed).

PRESS

We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with medicinepress@plos.org. If you have not yet opted out of the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may do so on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Thank you again for submitting to PLOS Medicine. We look forward to publishing your paper. 

Sincerely, 

Callam Davidson 

Associate Editor 

PLOS Medicine

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. STROBE checklist of items included in “A nationwide school fruit and vegetable policy and childhood and adolescent overweight: A quasi-natural experimental study.”.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Fig. Schematic of the quasi-natural experimental design.

    The dashed square indicates the period with the FFV policy; the squares indicate measurements in the NCGS (2010, 2012, and 2015) and NYGS (2017); and the dots indicate approximate (routine) measurements included in analysis. FFV, free fruit and vegetable; NCGS, Norwegian Childhood Growth Study; NYGS, Norwegian Youth Growth Study.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Fig. Plot of individual values used in the analysis samples of BMI in each cohort (2010, orange; 2015, green; 2017, brown).

    BMI, body mass index.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Fig. Participant flow charts by cohort.

    *Lost individuals are missing outcome. Pre-intervention BMI adjusted model. Adj, adjusted; BMI, body mass index; Educ, parental education; FFV, free fruit and vegetable; NFFV, no free fruit and vegetable; pop-den, population density; WC, waist circumference.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Fig. Predicted pre-intervention (2 to 5.5 years) trajectories of overweight (including obesity) in boys and girls who would attend a FFV (orange) versus a NFFV school (navy).

    The marginal proportions in each cohort and pooled cohorts, and in the crude and adjusted models, are presented. FFV, free fruit and vegetable; NFFV, no free fruit and vegetable.

    (DOCX)

    S5 Fig. Secondary analysis showing estimates of the FFV policy effect excluding NFFV schools that took part in the parental paid subscription program on BMISDS, OW/OB, WC, and WtHR at 8.5 years.

    (a) BMISDS; (b) OW/OB; (c) WC; (d) WtHR. Results are presented by sex and cohort (including pooled) and for each model. Expressed as the difference in outcome or OR versus the counterfactual (as estimated using the NFFV schools) with 95% CI. Analysis of BMISDS and OW/OB: Pooled models include terms for cohort (intercept and slope). Adjusted models include region, population density, and highest parental education (all intercept and slope). +Pre-intervention adjusted models additionally include adjustment for BMISDS prior to the intervention. Note: Pre-intervention slopes were constrained to be the same in each group for all models except for BMISDS in 2015 cohort girls. Analysis of WC and WtHR: Outcomes are from grade 3 only. Pooled models include a term for cohort. Adjusted models include region, population density, and highest parental education. BMISDS, body mass index standard deviation score; FFV, free fruit and vegetable; NFFV, no free fruit and vegetable; OR, odds ratio; OW/OB, overweight and obesity; WC, waist circumference; WtHR, waist to height ratio.

    (DOCX)

    S6 Fig. Secondary analysis showing estimates of the FFV policy effect excluding NFFV schools that took part in the parental paid subscription program on BMISDS, OW/OB, WC, and WtHR at 8.5 years, stratified by highest parental education level.

    (a) BMISDS; (b) OW/OB; (c) WC; (d) WtHR. Results are presented by sex, cohort (including pooled), and parental education for each model. Expressed as the difference in outcome or OR versus the counterfactual (as estimated using the NFFV schools) with 95% CI. The p-values are from a Wald test of the interaction between parental education and FFV. Analysis of BMISDS and OW/OB: Pooled models include terms for cohort (intercept and slope). Adjusted models include region and population density (all intercept and slope). +Pre-intervention adjusted models additionally include adjustment for BMISDS prior to the intervention. Analysis of WC and WtHR: Outcomes are from grade 3 only. Pooled models include a term for cohort. Adjusted models include region and population density. BMISDS, body mass index standard deviation score; FFV, free fruit and vegetable; NFFV, no free fruit and vegetable; OR, odds ratio; OW/OB, overweight and obesity; WC, waist circumference; WtHR, waist to height ratio.

    (DOCX)

    S7 Fig. Estimates of the school fruit and vegetable subscription program (paid versus not paid) on BMISDS, OW/OB, WC, and WtHR at 8.5 years, stratified by highest parental education level.

    (a) BMISDS; (b) OW/OB; (c) WC; (d) WtHR. Results are presented by cohort (including pooled) and parental education for each model. Expressed as the difference in outcome or OR versus the counterfactual (as estimated using the NFFV schools without the subscription program) with 95% CI. The p-values are from a Wald test of the interaction between parental education and the subscription program. Analysis of BMISDS and OW/OB: Pooled models include terms for cohort (intercept and slope). Adjusted models include region and population density (all intercept and slope). +Pre-intervention adjusted models additionally include adjustment for BMISDS prior to the intervention. Analysis of WC and WtHR: Outcomes are from grade 3 only. Pooled models include a term for cohort. Adjusted models include region and population density. BMISDS, body mass index standard deviation score; NFFV, no free fruit and vegetable; OR, odds ratio; OW/OB, overweight and obesity; WC, waist circumference; WtHR, waist to height ratio.

    (DOCX)

    S8 Fig. Secondary analysis showing estimates of the FFV policy effect excluding NFFV schools that took part in the parental paid subscription program on BMISDS and OW/OB at age 13 years.

    (a) BMISDS; (b) OW/OB. Results are presented by sex for each model and expressed as the difference in outcome or OR versus the counterfactual at 13 years (as estimated using the NFFV schools) with 95% CI. Note that data are from the 2017 cohort only. Crude model has no adjustment. Adjusted models include region, population density, and highest parental education (intercept and slopes); +Pre-intervention adjusted models include additional adjustment for BMISDS prior to the intervention. BMISDS, body mass index standard deviation score; FFV, free fruit and vegetable; NFFV, no free fruit and vegetable; OR, odds ratio; OW/OB, overweight and obesity.

    (DOCX)

    S9 Fig. Secondary analysis showing estimates of the FFV policy effect excluding NFFV schools that took part in the parental paid subscription program on BMISDS and OW/OB at age 13 years, stratified by highest parental education level.

    (a) BMISDS; (b) OW/OB. Results are presented by sex and parental education for each model. Expressed as the difference in outcome or OR versus the counterfactual (as estimated using the NFFV schools) with 95% CI. The p-values are from a Wald test of the interaction between parental education and FFV. Note that data are from the 2017 cohort only. Adjusted models include terms for region and population density (intercept and slopes). +Pre-intervention adjusted models include additional adjustment for BMISDS prior to the intervention. BMISDS, body mass index standard deviation score; FFV, free fruit and vegetable; NFFV, no free fruit and vegetable; OR, odds ratio; OW/OB, overweight and obesity.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Table. Frequencies of schools, children, and observations by county illustrating the hierarchical data structure of the 3 longitudinal cohorts (pooled) based on the analysis sample.

    Region and county at recruitment. FFV, free fruit and vegetable; NFFV, no free fruit and vegetable; Obs, observations.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Description of individuals included in the analysis of outcomes at age 8.5 (third grade) by attendance at a FFV school in each cohort and pooled across cohorts.

    *NFFV: Individuals who did not attend a school with FFV provision. FFV ≥ 1 year: Individuals who attended a school with FFV provision at least 1 year. In third grade. Of individuals attending NFFV schools, proportion who attended a school offering the paid fruit and vegetable subscription program. §Parental education prior to possible exposure (when the child was 4 years old). ªThese cohorts had longitudinal data and were pooled in the analysis of BMISDS and OW/OB. BMISDS, body mass index standard deviation score; FFV, free fruit and vegetable; NA, not applicable; NFFV, no free fruit and vegetable; OW/OB, overweight and obesity; Paid-sub, individuals attending schools offering the parental paid subscription program; SD, standard deviation.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Estimated differences in pre-intervention (2 to 5.5 years) trajectories of BMISDS in boys and girls who would attend a FFV versus a NFFV school.

    Differences in slope from 2 to 5.5 years and in BMISDS at 5.5 years in each cohort and pooled cohorts, and in the crude and adjusted models, are presented. Crude pooled models include adjustment for cohort (intercept and slope). All models include a random intercept for school and random coefficients for child. Adjusted models include region, population density, and highest parental education (intercept and slope); pooled adjusted models also include terms for cohort (intercept and slope). All models include random intercepts for school and random coefficients for child. aDifference in slope (BMISDS per year): FFV minus NFFV. bDifference in BMISDS at 5.5 years: FFV minus NFFV. BMISDS, body mass index standard deviation score; FFV, free fruit and vegetable; NFFV, no free fruit and vegetable.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Table. Odds ratios comparing pre-intervention (age 2 to 5.5 years) trajectories of overweight including obesity in boys and girls who would attend a FFV versus a NFFV school.

    The ORs compare the slopes of the log odds of OW/OB from age 2 to 5.5 years and the odds of OW/OB at age 5.5 years (pre-intervention age). Crude pooled models include adjustment for cohort (intercept and slope). All models include a random intercept for school and child. Adjusted models include region, population density, and highest parental education (intercept and slope); pooled adjusted models also include terms for cohort (intercept and slope). All models include random intercepts for school and child. aOR comparing slopes of log odds (log odds per year) of overweight: FFV/NFFV. bOR comparing log odds of overweight at 5.5 years (pre-intervention): FFV/NFFV. FFV, free fruit and vegetable; NFFV, no free fruit and vegetable; OR, odds ratio.

    (DOCX)

    S5 Table. Summary of some of the analyses that were performed to check robustness and consistency of results.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Text. Standardizing the BMI outcome (BMI standard deviation scores).

    (DOCX)

    S2 Text. Exposure to FFV policy classification.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Text. Longitudinal estimation of the FFV policy effect.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Text. Regional patterning of combined elementary and secondary (FFV) and elementary-only schools (NFFV).

    (DOCX)

    S5 Text. Directed acyclic graph.

    (DOCX)

    S6 Text. Sensitivity analysis with different classifications of parental education.

    (DOCX)

    S7 Text. National policy initiatives and co-interventions occurring over the time frame of the study.

    (DOCX)

    S8 Text. ROBINS-I tool for risk of bias in non-randomized comparisons.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to editors.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data cannot be shared publicly because of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as it contains personal data which is potentially identifying participant data. The Personal Data Regulations and Health Research Act (§ 7) in Norway and GDPR in the EU restrict sharing of these data. The Norwegian Institute of Public Health administer the main data used in this study. External researchers can apply for access to indirectly identifiable data based on appropriate legal bases for processing the data in accordance with GDPR Article 6(1) and 9(2). To apply for access to the data: https://www.fhi.no/en/more/access-to-data/applying-for-access-to-data/. For more information about access to the data used in this study or questions regarding data requests: https://www.fhi.no/div/helseundersokelser/vekstkohorten/tilgang-til-data-fra-vekstkohorten/ (website in Norwegian) or contact vekstkohorten@fhi.no.


    Articles from PLoS Medicine are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES