To minimize expenses, procedures for determining the number of portions prepared and recording the number of portions served were not modified for the purposes of the study. The amounts of a number of items in the menu cycle produced varied from week to week, and for many items the number of portions produced equaled the number served. This made it difficult to separate the influence of availability from changes in student choice. However, even for items with consistent production and servings left over each week, we were not able to discern any influence of the labels on the number of portions served. This is not entirely surprising since only about one-third of the students indicated that the signs influenced their food choices. Though we were not able to demonstrate an effect on food selection during this short intervention, nutrition and dietetics students gained valuable research experience, and dining services department obtained an increased understanding of customer preferences. This pilot project was accomplished at relatively low cost. A $1,000 student scholar-intern award available through our provost’s office was used to support the students who designed and carried out the surveys, evaluated the menus, and designed the Smart Choice signs. The small signs, posters, and survey forms cost less than $25 to print. Faculty and staff time for record-keeping and mentoring of the student-interns was incorporated into normal work responsibilities. As we continue to strive for sustainable, cost-effective ways to provide educational opportunities as well as meet the nutritional needs and food preferences of our students, collaborative projects provide a way to derive more benefit from limited resources. u
& W ellness
57
Smart Choice foods were indicated by signs that included the Smart Choice icon—a plate with a green check—and portion sizes.
C ampus D ining today
The dining hall interviews provided useful information for evaluating the Smart Choice intervention. As was the case in the Web-based survey, the students surveyed face-to-face were split on whether they wanted more nutrition information on a regular basis. Sixty five percent indicated they did, 34 percent indicated they did not, and 1 percent had no opinion. Eightyfive percent of the students interviewed noticed the Smart Choice signs, and 32 percent of the students who noticed the signs indicated that the signs had influenced their food choices either somewhat (21 percent) or substantially (11 percent). Interestingly, when students were asked about the extent to which posting signs in the service area on a regular basis would influence their food choices, more students thought their choices would be influenced somewhat (40 percent) or substantially (26 percent). Students were generally supportive of a symbol indicating healthier choices rather than a sign with calorie and nutrient content in the service area. When asked specifically about what nutrient information was most important to them, students most frequently mentioned calories, though a number of students voiced concern that posting calories near the food might pose problems for students with eating disorders. Additional comments of interest were a preference for more attractive signs, and pictures of portion sizes rather than written measurements.
N utrition
the prior two offerings of that menu cycle using the records kept by the production managers.