PROTOCOL DEVELOPMENT AND

PILOT TEST OF A SCHOOL BASED

TASTING BOOTH
Tara Conlon
Department of Food Science and Human
Nutrition
Plan B Defense
Colorado State
University
September 11, 2013

Outline

Project Goals and Objectives

Review of the Literature
Tasting Booth

Development of Protocol
LEAP Study Implementation
Foodservice Interviews

Discussion
Conclusion

Project Goals

Primary goal:

To influence and measure the willingness

of elementary students to try new foods
Real-life environment, low pressure

Secondary goal:

To develop a process that school

foodservice could use to introduce new
foods to students prior to inclusion on the
school lunch menu

Project Objectives

Develop tasting booth protocol

Pilot test tasting booth at a non-LEAP Study school

Implement tasting booth in four LEAP Study

schools

Perform interviews with:

on-site foodservice personnel at each site

school district foodservice directors

Review of the Literature

Childhood Obesity

United States
32.6% of six to eleven year olds are overweight
or obese

Colorado
27.6% of six to eleven year olds are overweight
or obese

Associated Health Risk

Short-term consequences: cardiovascular risk
factors, asthma and chronic inflammation
Long-term consequences: persistence of obesity
and cardiovascular risk factors into adulthood
and morbidity with increased mortality

Eating Behaviors

Taste preference
Genetic and
Environmental
Sweet taste

Familiarity
Food Neophobia
Repeated
exposure

Dietary Quality

Dietary Guidelines for Americans

(DGA) recommend 4-8 year olds
receive:

5 to 6 servings of fruits and vegetables

a day

Meeting the recommendations:

Nationally, 15.1% of 4-8 year olds

Colorado, 12.4% of 1-14 year olds

School Environment

Institute of Medicine (IOM) declared that

schools should be a primary setting for
behavior changes linked to obesity

Federal Nutrition Programs

National School Lunch Program

New Standards in 2012

Team Nutrition
USDA Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program

Current Interventions

School Cafeteria:

Influence eating
patterns
Supply children
with needed
nutrients
Provide nutrition
education

Cafeteria Interventions

Offer more fresh fruits and vegetables

Provide variety at the salad bar
Improve quality and attractiveness of
food
Provide nutrition education
Verbal prompt
Repeated taste exposures

The Food Dudes

Cafeteria based vegetable tasting program

Classroom Interventions

Classroom
Can influence eating attitudes, beliefs and
behaviors through nutrition education

Few hours spent on nutrition education:

Nationally teachers report a median of 3.4
hours in one year
Colorado LEAP Study teachers reported one
to two lessons per month, 15 to 30 minutes
each

Effective Interventions

School- based
Multi-component (combining classroom and
cafeteria)
Aimed to improve availability, accessibility
and taste preference of fruit and vegetables
Use of behavioral theories

Social Cognitive Theory

Social Marketing Framework

Background

The Food Friends

Two complementary
preschool programs to
address behaviors related to
childhood obesity
The Food Friends: Fun With
New Foods (FWNF)
Aim to increase willingness
to try new foods
12 weeks in duration
Decreased the refusals of
novel foods

The Colorado LEAP Study

Longitudinal Eating And Physical

Activity Study

Longitudinal cohort study assessing if the

behaviors developed in preschool can be
sustained into kindergarten and first grade
USDA funded
Collaborative between Colorado State
University and the University of Colorado at
Denver
Booster program

Tasting Booth
Development of Protocol
LEAP Study
Implementation
Foodservice Interviews

Development of
Protocol

School Environment Factors

Factor
Placeme
nt

Information needed

Space available

Locations of school

cafeteria and classrooms

Lunch and recess

schedules

Schedule
s

Classroo
ms

Students

Page 19

Considerations

Right next to or in cafeteria

Near classrooms
Tasting booth occurring
immediately before lunch

Total number

Duration of tasting booth

Location of each

Placement of tasting booth

Schedules for each

Scheduling of tasting booth

Number of students per

school, and per
classroom

Supplies needed

Duration of tasting booth

Tasting Foods
Factors
Foods used

Food
Behaviors

FF indicator foods and

novel foods

Simple: Try vs. Didnt

try

Complex: Try vs. Didnt

try plus exploratory
behaviors: spitting,
licking, smelling and
swallowing
Enough to provide a
taste, but not a full
snack

Amount of
food

Page 20

Considerations

Size of piece(s)

Decision
Jicama (indicator)

Edamame (novel)
Simplified measure

2 bite-size pieces

Logistics
Factors

Set-up

Considerations

Number of tasting
stations

One large table vs.

two small tables
Stickers with LEAP

participant number
and Food Friends
characters

Prevent exclusion of
non-study
participants
Children share

opinions

Study vs. NonStudy Participant

Identification

Interaction with
Children

Page 22

Decisions

2 small tables with 3

tasting stations
each

One character
identifies LEAP Study
participants
Other characters
identify non-study
participants
Tasting Tickets and Jars

Tasting Table

Logistics
Factors

Set-up

Considerations

Number of tasting
stations

One large table vs.

two small tables
Stickers with LEAP
participant
number and Food
Friends characters

Study vs. NonStudy Participant

Identification

Interaction with
Children

Page 22

Decisions

Prevent exclusion
of non-study
participants
Children share
opinions

2 tables with 3 tasting

stations each

One character
identifies LEAP
Study participants
Other characters
identify non-study
participants
Tasting Tickets and Jars

ID Stickers

700

003

800

900

Logistics
Factors

Set-up

Considerations

Number of tasting
stations

One large table vs.

two small tables
Stickers with LEAP
participant number
and Food Friends
characters

Study vs. NonStudy Participant

Identification

Interaction with
Children

Page 22

Prevent exclusion of
non-study
participants
Children share
opinions
Tool for
foodservice

Decisions

2 tables with 3 tasting

stations each

One character
identifies LEAP Study
participants

Other characters
identify non-study
participants

Tasting Tickets and

Jars

Tasting Tickets

Logistics (cont.)
Factors
Classroom
Introduction
What to say to
children
Staffing

Page 22

Considerations

Decisions

Explain tasting
activity

Script created

Interact with children

during tasting

Script created

Number of staff

8 researchers total

Theory

Social Cognitive
Theory
Behavio
r

Reciprocal
Determinis
m
Environme
nt

Persona
l

Social
Marketing
Product
Price
Place
Promotion

Feasibility Testing

Reviewed protocol with research

volunteers

Feedback provided

Further modifications were made to

protocol prior to pilot (i.e. placemat with
faces)

Placemats

Pilot Test

Purpose was to determine efficiency

of the protocol developed

Ponderosa Elementary School

(Loveland, CO) on November 1, 2012

4 first grade classrooms with a total

of 91 students

Protocol Modifications

Classroom introduction length

Distribution of stickers and tickets

Data Collection

Study vs. non-study

The LEAP Study

Implementation

LEAP Study Elementary Schools

School

Location

Treatmen
t

2013 Tasting
Booth

Avery Parsons
Elementary

Buena Vista,
CO

Control

Yes

Ayres Elementary

Sterling, CO

Interventio
n

Yes

Margaret J. Pitts
Elementary

Leadville, CO

Interventio
n

Yes

Thomson Elementary

Brush, CO

Control

No

West Park Elementary

Leadville, CO

Interventio
n

Yes

Definitions

Intervention: Children received FF programming

in preschool, K and first grade
Control: no FF programming preschool-first
grade
LEAP Study participants: consented participants
Non-Study participants: non-consented
participants

Methods

Implemented in
four LEAP Study
schools in February
and March, 2013

Participants were
all first grade
students attending
LEAP Study schools

Results
Total participants (n =
311)
Jicama participants (n
= 311)
Tastes
(n=284)
Refusals
(n=27)

Rating participants (n = 270 of 284

tastes)

Missing data (n=14)

Student did not participate in
rating
Researcher error

Page 33

Edamame participants (n=

309)

Excluded (n= 2)
Soy allergy (n=1)
No recorded reason
(n=1)
Tastes
(n=273)
Refusals
(n=36) (n = 249 of
Rating participants
273 tastes)

Missing data (n=24)

Student did not participate in
rating
Researcher error

All Participant Tastes

Total

Tastes

Total

311

284

91.3

Intervention

248

229

92.3

Control

63

55

87.3

Study

58

55

94.8

253

229

90.5

Total

309

273

88.3

Intervention

247

217

87.9

Control

62

56

90.3

Study

57

54

94.7

252

219

86.9

Jicama

Non-Study
Edamame

Non-study

Page 35

All Participant Ratings

Jicama

Tast
es

Yummy

OK

Total
Interventio
n
Control
Study
Non-Study
Edamame

284

220

77.5

229

183

55
55
229

Total
Interventio
n
Control
Study
Non-Study

36

12.7

14

4.9

79.9*

26

11.4

3.5*

37
43
177

67.3*
78.2
77.3

10
6
30

18.2
10.9
13.1

6
2
12

10.9*
3.6
5.2

273

167

61.2

44

16.1

38

13.9

217

130

59.9

34

15.7

31

14.3

56
54
219

37
35
132

66.1
64.8
60.3

10
8
36

17.9
14.8
16.4

7
8
30

12.5
14.8
13.7

*Statistically significant at P=.05 using chi-square test

Page 36

Yucky

LEAP Study Participants Tastes

Total

Tastes

58

55

94.8

42

41

97.6

16

14

87.5

57

54

94.7

42

40

85.2

15

14

93.3

Jicama
Total
Intervention
Control
Edamame
Total
Intervention
Control
Page 39

LEAP Study Participants Ratings

Tast
es

Yummy

OK

Yucky

55

43

78.2

10.9

3.6

41

35

85.4*

7.3

2.4

14

57.1*

21.4

7.1

Edamame

Total

54

35

64.8

14.8

14.8

40

27

67.5

15.0

10.0

14.3

28.6

Jicama
Total
Intervention
Control

Intervention

*Statistically significant at P=.05 using fishers exact test

Control

Page 39

14

57.1

Foodservice
Interviews

Methods

Group (face to face) interviews with onsite school foodservice personnel

Individual (telephone) interviews with

school district foodservice directors

Evaluate their knowledge, behavior and

attitudes of related to the introduction
of new foods on the school menu

Results: Group Interviews

Questions

Group (n=4)

Creation of school
menu

Individual (n=2)
x

Introduction of new
foods (foodservice)

Introduction of new
foods (students)

Type of new foods

Promotional
materials

Tasting Booth

Page 43-44

Discussion

Strengths

Existing relationships

Incorporation FF characters

Use of theory

Limitations

Relatively small sample

Generalizability

Number of researchers

Recommendations

Data further utilized by LEAP Study

Test tasting booth with different

populations

Modify protocol for use by school

foodservice

Title change to Tasting Challenge

Conclusion

The protocol as written was successful in the

implementation at LEAP Study schools

The results of this study suggest that the use of a

tasting booth may be helpful in influencing
childrens willingness to try new foods

Discrepancies exist between on-site school

foodservice personnel and school foodservice
directors. However, all believed a tasting booth
could be a useful tool.

References
1. Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Flegal KM. Prevalence of obesity and trends in body mass index among US children and adolescents, 1999-2010. JAMA. Feb 1 2012;307(5):483-490.
2. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 2012 Colorado Child Health Survey http://www.chd.dphe.state.co.us/topics.aspx?q=Maternal_Child_Health_Data Accessed
August 10, 2013
3. Reilly JJ. Descriptive epidemiology and health consequences of childhood obesity. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. Sep 2005;19(3):327-341.
4. Dietz WH. Health consequences of obesity in youth: childhood predictors of adult disease. Pediatrics. Mar 1998;101(3 Pt 2):518-525.
5. Slyper AH. Childhood obesity, adipose tissue distribution, and the pediatric practitioner. Pediatrics. Jul 1998;102(1):e4.
6. Wardle J, Cooke L. Genetic and environmental determinants of children's food preferences. Br J Nutr. Feb 2008;99 Suppl 1:S15-21.
7. Maller O, Turner RE. Taste in acceptance of sugars by human infants. Journal of comparative and physiological psychology. Sep 1973;84(3):496-501.
8. Birch LL. Development Of Food Preferences. Annual review of nutrition. 1999;19(1):41.
9. Addessi E, Galloway AT, Visalberghi E, Birch LL. Specific social influences on the acceptance of novel foods in 2-5-year-old children. Appetite. Dec 2005;45(3):264-271.
10.United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. My Plate, Food Groups. 2013; http://www.choosemyplate.gov/food-groups/. Accessed August 10, 2013.
11.Guenther PM, Dodd KW, Reedy J, Krebs-Smith SM. Most Americans eat much less than recommended amounts of fruits and vegetables. Journal of the American Dietetic Association.
Sep 2006;106(9):1371-1379.
12.Koplan JP LC, Kaak VI. Preventing Childhood Obesity: Health in the Balance. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2005.
13.United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Child Nutrition Programs. 2013; http://www.fns.usda.gov/child-nutrition-programs. Accessed August 10, 2013.
14.Connors P, Bednar C, Klammer S. Cafeteria factors that influence milk-drinking behaviors of elementary school children: Grounded theory approach. Journal of Nutrition Education.
Jan-Feb 2001;33(1):31-36.
15.Slusser WM, Cumberland WG, Browdy BL, Lange L, Neumann C. A school salad bar increases frequency of fruit and vegetable consumption among children living in low-income
households. Public health nutrition. Dec 2007;10(12):1490-1496.
16.Schwartz MB. The influence of a verbal prompt on school lunch fruit consumption: a pilot study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. Mar 2007;4.
17.Wengreen HJ, Madden GJ, Aguilar SS, Smits RR, Jones BA. Incentivizing children's fruit and vegetable consumption: results of a United States pilot study of the Food Dudes Program.
Journal of nutrition education and behavior. Jan-Feb 2013;45(1):54-59.
18.Lakkakula A, Geaghan JP, Wong WP, Zanovec M, Pierce SH, Tuuri G. A cafeteria-based tasting program increased liking of fruits and vegetables by lower, middle and upper
elementary school-age children. Appetite. Aug 2011;57(1):299-302.
19.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. School Health Policies and Practices Study. 2013; http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/shpps/index.htm. Accessed August 10, 2013.
20.Watts SO, Pinero DJ, Alter MM, Lancaster KJ. An Assessment of nutrition education in selected counties in New York State elementary schools (kindergarten through fifth grade).
Journal of nutrition education and behavior. Nov-Dec 2012;44(6):474-480.
21.D'Hooge A. Super Tasters and Mighty Movers: Extending The Food Friends Messages into Early Elementary School . Fort Collins, CO: Department of Food Science and Human
Nutrition, Colorado State University; 2013.
22.Blanchette L, Brug J. Determinants of fruit and vegetable consumption among 6-12-year-old children and effective interventions to increase consumption. Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the
official journal of the British Dietetic Association. Dec 2005;18(6):431-443.
23.Evans CE, Christian MS, Cleghorn CL, Greenwood DC, Cade JE. Systematic review and meta-analysis of school-based interventions to improve daily fruit and vegetable intake in children aged 5 to 12
y. The American journal of clinical nutrition. Oct 2012;96(4):889-901.
24.Nixon CA, Moore HJ, Douthwaite W, et al. Identifying effective behavioural models and behaviour change strategies underpinning preschool- and school-based obesity prevention interventions aimed
at 4-6-year-olds: a systematic review. Obes Rev. Mar 2012;13 Suppl 1:106-117.
25.Glanz K RB. Theory at a glance: A guide for health promotion practice. United States Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service. National Institutes of Health; 1995.
26.Young L, Anderson J, Beckstrom L, Bellows L, Johnson SL. Making new foods fun for kids. Journal of nutrition education and behavior. Nov-Dec 2003;35(6):337-338.
27.Bellows L. A Longitudinal Study to Assess if the Effectiveness of a Preschool Nutrition and Physical Activity Program is Sustained in Elementary School. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University,
2010.

Acknowledgements

Committee Members:
Dr. Laura Bellows
Dr. Susan Johnson
Dr. Leslie Cunningham-Sabo
Dr. Daniel Graham

The LEAP Study Team

Tasting Booth Researchers

Questions?