Original Article

European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2012) 66, 1124–1129; doi:10.1038/ejcn.2012.108; published online 15 August 2012

Interventions and public health nutrition

Evaluation of implementation of a healthy food and drink supply strategy throughout the whole school environment in Queensland state schools, Australia

M Dick1, A Lee2, M Bright3, K Turner4, R Edwards5, J Dawson6 and J Miller1

  1. 1Healthy Living Branch, Queensland Health, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  2. 2School of Public Health and Social Work and School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Queensland, Australia
  3. 3Population Epidemiology Unit, Queensland Health, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  4. 4Department of Education, Training, and Employment, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  5. 5Tropical Regional Services, Queensland Health, Cairns, Queensland, Australia
  6. 6Student Support Programs, Department of Education, Training, and Employment, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Correspondence: M Dick, Healthy Living Branch, Queensland Health, PO Box 2368, Fortitude Valley BC, Brisbane, Queensland 4006, Australia. E-mail: Mathew_Dick@health.qld.gov.au

Received 9 May 2012; Revised 17 July 2012; Accepted 17 July 2012
Advance online publication 15 August 2012





This paper reports on the evaluation of the Smart Choices healthy food and drink supply strategy for Queensland schools (Smart Choices) implementation across the whole school environment in state government primary and secondary schools in Queensland, Australia.



Three concurrent surveys using different methods for each group of stakeholders that targeted all 1275 school Principals, all 1258 Parent and Citizens’ Associations (P&Cs) and a random sample of 526 tuckshop convenors throughout Queensland. Nine hundred and seventy-three Principals, 598 P&Cs and 513 tuckshop convenors participated with response rates of 78%, 48% and 98%, respectively.



Nearly all Principals (97%), P&Cs (99%) and tuckshop convenors (97%) reported that their school tuckshop had implemented Smart Choices. The majority of Principals and P&Cs reported implementation, respectively, in: school breakfast programs (98 and 92%); vending machine stock (94 and 83%); vending machine advertising (85 and 84%); school events (87 and 88%); school sporting events (81 and 80%); sponsorship and advertising (93 and 84%); fundraising events (80 and 84%); and sporting clubs (73 and 75%). Implementation in curriculum activities, classroom rewards and class parties was reported, respectively, by 97%, 86% and 75% of Principals. Respondents also reported very high levels of understanding of Smart Choices and engagement of the school community.



The results demonstrated that food supply interventions to promote nutrition across all domains of the school environment can be implemented successfully.


schools; food supply; environment; evaluation; Australia; obesity



Children and young people need optimum nutrition to enhance immunity, achieve full cognitive and physical potential, maintain healthy weight, establish healthy dietary patterns and reduce future risk of chronic disease.1 Further, there is a evidence that good nutrition can impact positively on performance at school.2, 3 However, dietary intakes of Queensland children aged 5–17 years are high in added sugars and saturated fat, low in fruit and vegetables, and particularly for older girls, low in calcium and iron.4 In 2006, 19.4% of boys and 22.8% of girls of these ages were overweight or obese.4

The school setting in Australia provides opportunity to implement ‘upstream’ nutrition programs5, 6 as around 37% of children’s energy intake is consumed at school on school days.7 However, energy-dense nutrient-poor (EDNP) food and drinks are overrepresented in the school environment.8 In one Australian study only about 10% of children used the school canteen, but they consumed more energy from EDNP foods than children who brought lunch from home.8 Provision of EDNP foods at school may contribute to children’s belief that daily consumption of these products is appropriate.9 Conversely, the school food supply can potentially reinforce nutrition education components of the school curriculum10, 11 and environmental interventions in schools can assist parents in improving children’s diet at home.12 In Queensland and internationally, the school setting is identified as one important area for intervention to promote healthy weight in children.1, 5, 13

In 2007, there were 1715 schools in Queensland, of which 72.9% (1250) were state (government) schools and 27.1% (465) were non-state (non-government) schools.14 There were 697903 full-time students, of which 68.6% attended state schools and 31.4% attended non-state schools.14 The school year in Australia is divided into four terms.

Schools in Queensland are supported by a Parents and Citizens’ Association (P&C), which provides feedback on school policies and activities, resources to assist student learning and opportunities for parent involvement in children’s education.15 The P&C usually operates the school tuckshop (or canteen) to provide a student foodservice and potentially raise supplementary funds. School tuckshops sell ready-to-eat items to take-away and do not provide cooked meals for consumption in dining facilities.

The Smart Choices healthy food and drink supply strategy for Queensland Schools (Smart Choices)16 was developed by a partnership between the Department of Education and Training and Queensland Health, and implemented with the support of professional, and non-government organizations. The strategy aims to ensure that all food and drinks supplied in schools reflects the Dietary Guidelines for Children and Adolescents in Australia17 and targets the school community and whole school environment according to evidence described previously.18, 19, 20

Smart Choices is based on an approach developed in New South Wales21 to separate foods and drinks into three categories: ‘green’ (have plenty); ‘amber’ (select carefully); and ‘red’ (occasional). Foods and drinks from the five basic food groups are classified in the ‘green’ category. The amounts of energy, saturated fat, sodium and fiber in other foods are assessed to determine if they fit into the ‘amber’ or ‘red’ categories. Smart Choices ensures that ‘red’ foods and drinks are eliminated from schools’ regular food supply, and are supplied on no more than two occasions each term, such as celebrations or fundraising events. More information about Smart Choices is available elsewhere.16

Smart Choices applies to all situations where food and drinks are supplied in the school environment—tuckshops, vending machines, school excursions, school camps, fundraising, classroom rewards, sports days, breakfast programs, school events, class parties, sponsorship and advertising and curriculum activities. Implementation became mandatory in all 1275 Queensland state schools on 1st January 2007. Mandatory implementation was not possible in non-state schools as they are not administered by the state government.

The purpose of this paper is to report on an evaluation of the implementation of Smart Choices in all state schools in Queensland after implementation had been mandatory for one term.


Materials and methods

Sample selection and data collection

Three surveys of school Principals, P&Cs and tuckshop convenors were conducted in Queensland state primary and secondary schools during Term 2 (May–July) 2007 to examine the process and impact of implementation of Smart Choices. All Principals with an e-mail address provided by the Department of Education and Training (n=1275), all P&Cs (n=1258) and tuckshop convenors from all state schools with an operating tuckshop (n=905) who had held the position for at least 12 months were eligible for inclusion. Non-state schools were not included and schools catering for children with special needs (special schools) were excluded from the tuckshop convenor survey, as few have tuckshops.

All eligible school Principals were invited to complete an online survey. More Principals were eligible than the number of state schools in Queensland as some schools have multiple campuses. A self-administered questionnaire was posted to each P&C with a reminder sent 4 weeks later to all non-responders. To manage costs, a random sample of tuckshop convenors was interviewed using a computer assisted telephone interview. Different methods utilizing the most effective communication channels were applied to maximize the response rate from each group.

Surveys were completed by 991 Principals, 607 P&Cs and 513 tuckshop convenors. Responses missing more than 25% of the survey items were withdrawn from further analyses. The final sample size comprised 973 Principals, 598 P&Cs and 513 tuckshop convenors with response rates of 78%, 48%, and 98%, respectively.

Data analysis

Results were analyzed by school location (rural or urban) and school type (primary, secondary or special school). Schools with prepatory year to year 9 were coded as primary. Schools with years 8 to 12, or prepatory year to years 10–12 were coded as secondary schools.

Results were analyzed using SPSS 13.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Analysis of variance tests were used to identify difference between groups; P<0.05 was used to conclude a significant difference between groups.



Details of the survey sample are presented in Table 1. The sample was representative of Queensland state schools by location and type of school.


Almost all Principals (96–98%) reported implementation of Smart Choices in school tuckshops, breakfast programs and curriculum activities (Figure 1). Most Principals also reported that vending machine advertising and stock, school excursions, sponsorship and advertising, foods prepared and sold or supplied by students, school camps, school events and student rewards met the requirements of Smart Choices. Although still high, fewer Principals reported implementation of Smart Choices in school sporting clubs, class parties, fundraising activities and school sporting events. Overall 83% of Principals rated their schools as achieving good or excellent implementation, and only 8% of Principals rated implementation as fair, poor or unsure.

Figure 1.
Figure 1 - Unfortunately we are unable to provide accessible alternative text for this. If you require assistance to access this image, please contact help@nature.com or the author

Proportion of Principals and P&Cs reporting implementation.

Full figure and legend (141K)

Ninety-nine percent of P&Cs reported implementing Smart Choices in the school tuckshop and 92% in breakfast programs (Figure 1). Although still very high, fewer P&Cs reported implementation in school/P&C events, fundraising, sponsorship and advertising, vending machines, sports events and school sporting clubs.

Ninety-seven percent of tuckshop convenors reported that all ‘red’ foods and drinks had been removed from the tuckshop. Ninety-one percent of tuckshop convenors reported that the availability of ‘green’ foods and drinks had increased on the tuckshop menu, particularly low fat dairy products (90%), plain water (82%), fruit (78%), vegetables (77%) and wholegrain foods (75%). Fifty-six percent of P&Cs reported increased (15%) or unchanged (41%) tuckshop profits as implementing Smart Choices. Around one-third (32%) reported decreased profits, and the remaining 13% were unsure whether there had been any change.


Seventy-nine percent of Principals, 86% P&Cs and 89% of tuckshop convenors rated their understanding of Smart Choices as good or excellent. Fifty-three percent of P&Cs and 70% of tuckshop convenors attended at least one information session.

At least 95% of P&Cs and tuckshop convenors were confident classifying food and drinks as ‘green’, ‘amber’ or ‘red’ and 99% of tuckshop convenors were confident implementing Smart Choices.


Ninety-seven percent of Principals and 93% of P&Cs reported that arrangements to limit the supply or sale of ‘red’ foods and drinks to no more than two occasions per term existed.

Ninety-one percent of Principals and 86% of P&Cs agreed that Smart Choices was an important strategy to improve children’s health; 90 and 91% agreed that the school put student’s health and wellbeing before profits; and 64 and 58% agreed that the school received a lot of support from the school community. Amongst P&Cs, 78% believed that healthy school tuckshops could be financially viable and 62% believed healthy fundraising could be financially viable.

Differences between type of schools and location of schools

Urban school Principals were more likely than rural school Principals to report implementation at sporting events, and to rate overall implementation as good or excellent (87 and 79%, Pless than or equal to0.001) (Table 2). Primary school Principals were more likely than secondary school Principals to report implementation in curriculum activities (98 and 95%, Pless than or equal to0.05) and school excursions (95 and 91%, Pless than or equal to0.05).

Urban school P&Cs were significantly more likely than rural school P&Cs to report increased tuckshop profits (19 and 10%, Pless than or equal to0.01). There was no significant difference in reporting increased tuckshop profits between secondary and primary schools (17 and 11%, NS), but secondary school P&Cs were significantly more likely than primary schools to report decreased tuckshop profits (47 and 26%, Pless than or equal to0.01).

Urban school tuckshop convenors were significantly more likely than those from rural schools to agree or strongly agree that they had reliable access to healthier products (86 and 69%, Pless than or equal to0.001) and to report increased availability on their menus of fruit (86 and 69%, Pless than or equal to0.001) reduced fat dairy products (93 and 87%, Pless than or equal to0.05) wholegrain products (83 and 66%, Pless than or equal to0.001) and chilled water (89 and 74%, Pless than or equal to0.001).

Primary school tuckshop convenors were significantly more likely to agree or strongly agree than those from secondary schools that they were satisfied with the range of ‘green’ and ‘amber’ products available (82 and 70%, Pless than or equal to0.01) and to report increased availability of fruit on their menus (83 and 67%, Pless than or equal to0.01).

Principals from secondary schools were more likely than those from primary schools (85 and 77%, Pless than or equal to0.05), and those from urban schools were more likely than those from rural schools (83 and 75%, Pless than or equal to0.05), to report their understanding of Smart Choices as either good or excellent.

Urban P&Cs were more likely than rural P&Cs to attend a Smart Choices information session (43 and 30%, Pless than or equal to0.01) and twice as likely to contact support organizations for assistance. Urban tuckshop convenors were also more likely than rural convenors to attend an information session (52 and 37%, Pless than or equal to0.001) or a convenor network meeting (43 and 20%, Pless than or equal to0.001). Secondary school convenors were significantly more likely than primary school convenors to report attending all opportunities for training and networking.



Comparison with other school-based nutrition intervention projects

Internationally, nutrition interventions in schools have focused on nutrition education programs13, 22, 23 while more ‘upstream’ environmental interventions have largely focused on school lunches, school canteens,24, 25, 26 vending machines,27 or specific practices such as breakfast programs28, 29 and school gardens.30 Interventions tend to focus on specific foods,26 including fruit and vegetables,12, 31, 32 or specific dietary outcomes, such as increased consumption of low fat choices.33 Compensation may occur if all foods and drinks and school environments are not targeted. For example, vending machine numbers doubled and vending sales of chips and candy increased when nutrition policies were implemented in school lunch services in Texas.34 When the nutrition policy was extended across other school food environments, the number of vending machines reduced to near baseline levels.25 Most relevant previous studies have been conducted in small numbers of schools to suit study design and foster randomization and comparison of intervention effects.35

In other Australian states and territories, healthy food and drink supply initiatives have been introduced. Poor outcomes were described in one state, but the reported results included non-government schools (where the guidelines were not mandatory), some data were collected before the guidelines became mandatory, and it was unknown if school menus had improved over time.36 Internationally, some school-based interventions to increase the availability and promotion of specific foods have been successful,33 particularly when extended beyond the school cafeteria.37 A potentially useful framework for classification of environmental policies to promote school nutrition has been developed recently in Canada.38 However, to our knowledge Smart Choices is the first time that a healthy food and drink supply policy has been implemented successfully across most aspects of the whole school environment, particularly in such a large number of schools.


All key members of the school community contributed to implementing Smart Choices across the school environment. High levels of implementation were reported in tuckshops, and were slightly higher than results from other Australian states.36, 39 Greater focus and implementation support are required across sporting events and clubs, fundraising, school events, class parties and student rewards.

Despite higher rates of attendance at information sessions, secondary schools reported more challenges implementing Smart Choices in tuckshops, and were more likely to report decreased profits and less satisfaction with the range of healthy products available. The greater variety and number of products offered at secondary schools, and observations of more established food preferences of older children4 may help explain these results. Challenges with comprehensive implementation of nutrition policies in secondary schools compared with primary schools is consistent with international experience.40, 41

Other reported differences in implementation may be explained by different levels of interest and abilities amongst individuals responsible for implementing changes and different levels of support available from external agencies.

Fundraising activities based on ‘red’ foods and drinks, such as chocolate drives, have high profit generating potential. Therefore, it is encouraging that 80% of Principals and 84% of P&Cs reported implementing Smart Choices in this area. However, with one in five schools not implementing Smart Choices in fundraising, and fewer P&Cs believing that healthy fundraising can be financially viable (compared with a healthy tuckshop), strategies to improve P&Cs’ confidence and ability to fundraise successfully without relying on ‘red’ products are needed to build on existing work.42

Urban schools faced fewer barriers to implementing Smart Choices, and had greater access to healthy foods through suppliers and distributors. The higher prices and limited availability of healthy foods in rural and remote communities throughout Queensland has been documented previously;43 policy initiatives beyond the school environment are required urgently to address these issues. However, Principals and P&Cs from rural and remote schools were also less likely to report positive attitudes towards the implementation of Smart Choices. These results suggest that additional support for implementation should be directed to rural schools.

The Queensland Association of School Tuckshops estimated that the total sales figure for school tuckshops in Queensland exceeded $154 million per annum in 2007.44 The greater range of ‘healthy’ products available since the introduction of Smart Choices suggests that this purchasing power has influenced product development and reformulation, such as reduced sugar, salt and fat versions of processed savory foods and dairy foods, and smaller sized bakery products.

Recent evidence suggests that most schools do not encounter overall losses of revenue after making improvements to nutrition policies.41 The changes in reported tuckshop profits were not investigated at the time as implementation had been mandatory for only one school term before evaluation. Despite 32% indicating profits had decreased, a 2008 survey reported that 83% of school tuckshops were profitable, with only 17% reporting any level of loss.44 Only half of the tuckshops stated that making a profit was important, which could explain why some continue to make a loss. Further work is needed to more thoroughly assess the financial impact of policy changes by quantifying revenue and profit and losses.41


Schools clearly support the rationale for Smart Choices with most respondents believing they have a role in promoting the health and wellbeing of students. This was reinforced by the high level of support from Principals and P&Cs for the importance of Smart Choices as a strategy to improve children’s health, and in putting student health and wellbeing before profits. The lower levels of involvement of the broader school community may reflect the challenges of engaging community volunteers in general school activities.45

The vast majority of Principals and P&Cs reported that arrangements were in place to limit the supply or sale of ‘red’ foods and drinks across the school to no more than two occasions a term (97% and 93%, respectively), indicating a high level of engagement and coordination across schools. This was very encouraging, given another Australian study suggested that teachers are less likely than others to see obesity prevention as a responsibility of schools.46


Although the response rates of the online and mail out surveys are typical,47, 48 caution must be taken in generalizing results to all state schools across Queensland, as it is not known if survey respondents differed from schools who did not respond. For example, comparison of P&C responses with non-responders (Table 1) suggest that rural primary schools and special schools were slightly underrepresented, potentially skewing reported implementation in favor of urban schools.

The results of all three surveys were based on self-report, which is clearly not as objective as recorded observations. However, the very high level of consistency between the three groups adds credibility to the self-reported results in this study, and Principals were ideally positioned to report on activities within their school and the attitudes of those implementing the strategy.

The unavailability of baseline data to compare quantitative changes in food supply is a major limitation. Assessing the impact of school nutrition policy using the most robust forms of evaluation would ideally require social policy to be applied so that evaluations could be constructed as experiments.29 However, this can be difficult when the perceived value of implementing an intervention rapidly (and widely) is high. This evaluation focused on process and impact of Smart Choices implementation; further work to evaluate outcomes by assessing turnover of foods and drinks through tuckshops is desirable.26



The evaluation has demonstrated that broad environmental interventions to promote healthy eating across all domains of the school setting can overcome recognized barriers49 and be implemented successfully. Future program resources should provide ongoing support to maintain implementation in tuckshops, vending machines and breakfast programs and strengthen implementation in school sporting events and clubs, fundraising events, classroom rewards and class parties.


Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.



  1. Queensland Government. Eat Well Be Active - Healthy Kids for Life. Queensland Health: Brisbane, QLD, 2005 (cited 8 May 2012); Available from http://www.health.qld.gov.au/ph/documents/hpu/29187.pdf.
  2. Bellisle F. Effects of diet on behaviour and cognition in children. Br J Nutr 2004; 92 (Suppl 2), S227–S232. | Article | PubMed | ISI | CAS |
  3. Taras H. Nutrition and student performance at school. J Sch Health 2005; 75: 199–213. | PubMed |
  4. Abbott R, Macdonald D, Stubbs C, Lee A, Harper C, Davies P. Healthy Kids Queensland Survey 2006: Full Report. Queensland Health: Brisbane, QLD, 2008 (cited 8 May 2012); Available from http://www.health.qld.gov.au/ph/documents/hpu/healthykidsqld2006.pdf.
  5. Lobstein T, Baur L, Uauy R. Obesity in children and young people: a crisis in public health. Obes Rev 2004; 5 (Suppl 1), 4–104. | Article | PubMed |
  6. Perez-Rodrigo C, Klepp KI, Yngve A, Sjostrom M, Stockley L, Aranceta J. The school setting: an opportunity for the implementation of dietary guidelines. Public Health Nutr 2001; 4: 717–724. | PubMed |
  7. Bell AC, Swinburn BA. What are the key food groups to target for preventing obesity and improving nutrition in schools? Eur J Clin Nutr 2004; 58: 258–263. | Article | PubMed | ISI | CAS |
  8. Sanigorski AM, Bell AC, Kremer PJ, Swinburn BA. Lunchbox contents of Australian school children: room for improvement. Eur J Clin Nutr 2005; 59: 1310–1316. | Article | PubMed |
  9. Bell AC, Swinburn BA. School canteens: using ripples to create a wave of healthy eating. Med J Aust 2005; 183: 5–6. | PubMed |
  10. Cleland V, Worsley A, Crawford D. What are grade 6 and 6 children buying from school canteens and what do parents and teachers think about it? Nutr Diet 2004; 61: 145–150.
  11. Subratty AH, Chan Sun M, Kassean HK. A need for healthy canteens in secondary schools in mauritius. Nutr Food Sci 2003; 33: 208–212. | Article |
  12. Moore L, Tapper K. The impact of school fruit tuck shops and school food policies on children’s fruit consumption: a cluster randomised trial of schools in deprived areas. J Epidemiol Community Health 2008; 62: 926–931. | Article | PubMed |
  13. Waters E, de Silva-Sanigorski A, Hall BJ, Brown T, Campbell KJ, Gao Y et al. Interventions for preventing obesity in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011 CD001871.
  14. Office of Economic and Statistical Research. Information Brief Schools Australia 2007: OESR: Brisbane, 2008.
  15. Queensland Council of Parents and Citizens’ Associations Inc. Operations Manual 2011. manual for P&C Associations. QCPCA: Brisbane, 2011, Available from http://www.qcpca.org.au/publications/manuals/pc-operations-manual.
  16. Queensland Government. Smart Choices: Healthy Food and Drink Supply Strategy for Queensland Schools. Department of Education, Training and the Arts: Brisbane, QLD, 2005 (cited 3 October 2011); Available from http://education.qld.gov.au/schools/healthy/food-drink-resources.html.
  17. National Health and Medical Research Council. Dietary Guidelines for Children and Adolescents in Australia. NHMRC: Canberra, 2003.
  18. Briggs M, Safaii S, Beall DL. Position of the American Dietetic Association, Society for Nutrition Education, and American School Food Service Association--Nutrition services: an essential component of comprehensive school health programs. J Am Diet Assoc 2003; 103: 505–514. | PubMed |
  19. Perez-Rodrigo C, Aranceta J. Nutrition education in schools: experiences and challenges. Eur J Clin Nutr 2003; 57 (Suppl 1), S82–S85. | Article | PubMed |
  20. Warren JM, Henry CJ, Lightowler HJ, Bradshaw SM, Perwaiz S. Evaluation of a pilot school programme aimed at the prevention of obesity in children. Health Promot Int 2003; 18: 287–296. | Article | PubMed | ISI | CAS |
  21. New South Wales Health. Fresh Tastes@School: NSW Healthy School Canteen Strategy. NSW Health: North Sydney, NSW, 2004 (cited 3 October 2011); Available from http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/resources/publichealth/healthpromotion/obesity/pdf/can_menuplan.pdf.
  22. Kafatos A, Manios Y, Moschandreas J. Health and nutrition education in primary schools of Crete: follow-up changes in body mass index and overweight status. Eur J Clin Nutr 2005; 59: 1090–1092. | Article | PubMed | CAS |
  23. Powers AR, Struempler BJ, Guarino A, Parmer SM. Effects of a nutrition education program on the dietary behavior and nutrition knowledge of second-grade and third-grade students. J Sch Health 2005; 75: 129–133. | Article | PubMed |
  24. Cullen KW, Hartstein J, Reynolds KD, Vu M, Resnicow K, Greene N et al. Improving the school food environment: results from a pilot study in middle schools. J Am Diet Assoc 2007; 107: 484–489. | Article | PubMed |
  25. Cullen KW, Watson K, Zakeri I. Improvements in middle school student dietary intake after implementation of the Texas Public School Nutrition Policy. Am J Public Health 2008; 98: 111–117. | Article | PubMed |
  26. Cullen KW, Watson KB. The impact of the Texas public school nutrition policy on student food selection and sales in Texas. Am J Public Health 2009; 99: 706–712. | Article | PubMed |
  27. Matthews A, Nelson M, Kaur A, Rayner M, Kelly P, Cowburn G. Where has all the chocolate gone? A national survey assesses the effects of recent legislation to improve the nutritional quality of English secondary-school vending. Public Health Nutr 2011; 14: 1394–1402. | Article | PubMed |
  28. Powell CA, Walker SP, Chang SM, Grantham-McGregor SM. Nutrition and education: a randomized trial of the effects of breakfast in rural primary school children. Am J Clin Nutr 1998; 68: 873–879. | PubMed | CAS |
  29. Shemilt I, Harvey I, Shepstone L, Swift L, Reading R, Mugford M et al. A national evaluation of school breakfast clubs: evidence from a cluster randomized controlled trial and an observational analysis. Child Care Health Dev 2004; 30: 413–427. | Article | PubMed | CAS |
  30. Ozer EJ. The effects of school gardens on students and schools: conceptualization and considerations for maximizing healthy development. Health Edu Behav 2007; 34: 846–863. | Article |
  31. 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: 558–568. | Article | PubMed |
  32. Laurence S, Peterken R, Burns C. Fresh Kids: the efficacy of a Health Promoting Schools approach to increasing consumption of fruit and water in Australia. Health Promot Int 2007; 22: 218–226. | Article | PubMed | CAS |
  33. French SA, Story M, Fulkerson JA, Hannan P. An environmental intervention to promote lower-fat food choices in secondary schools: outcomes of the TACOS Study. Am J Public Health 2004; 94: 1507–1512. | Article | PubMed |
  34. Cullen KW, Watson K, Zakeri I, Ralston K. Exploring changes in middle-school student lunch consumption after local school food service policy modifications. Public Health Nutr 2006; 9: 814–820. | Article | PubMed |
  35. Contento IR, Randell JS, Basch CE. Review and Analysis of Evaluation Measures Used in Nutrition Education Intervention Research. J Nutr Edu Behav 2002; 34: 2–25. | Article |
  36. de Silva-Sanigorski A, Breheny T, Jones L, Lacy K, Kremer P, Carpenter L et al. Government food service policies and guidelines do not create healthy school canteens. Aust N Z J Public Health 2011; 35: 117–121. | Article | PubMed |
  37. Perry CL, Bishop DB, Taylor GL, Davis M, Story M, Gray C et al. A randomized school trial of environmental strategies to encourage fruit and vegetable consumption among children. Health Edu Behav 2004; 31: 65–76. | Article |
  38. Masse LC, Frosh MM, Chriqui JF, Yaroch AL, Agurs-Collins T, Blanck HM et al. Development of a School Nutrition-Environment State Policy Classification System (SNESPCS). Am J Prev Med 2007; 33 (4 Suppl), S277–S291. | Article | PubMed |
  39. Pettigrew S, Donovan RJ, Jalleh G, Pescud M, Cowie SAddressing Childhood Obesity Through School Canteens. University of Western Australia Business School and Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer Control, Curtin University: Perth, WA, 2009 (cited 3 October 2011); Available from http://www.det.wa.edu.au/healthyfoodanddrink/detcms/navigation/resources/?oid=Category-id-11227876.
  40. Story M, Nanney MS, Schwartz MB. Schools and obesity prevention: creating school environments and policies to promote healthy eating and physical activity. Milbank Q 2009; 87: 71–100. | Article | PubMed |
  41. Wharton CM, Long M, Schwartz MB. Changing nutrition standards in schools: the emerging impact on school revenue. J Sch Health 2008; 78: 245–251. | Article | PubMed |
  42. Queensland Association of School Tuckshops. Fresh Ideas for Fundraising. The Association: Brisbane, QLD, 2006 (cited 4 May 2012); Available from http://www.qast.org.au/FreshIdeasforFundraising/tabid/89/Default.aspx.
  43. Harrison MS, Coyne T, Lee AJ, Leonard D, Lowson S, Groos A et al. The increasing cost of the basic foods required to promote health in Queensland. Med J Aust 2007; 186: 9–14. | PubMed |
  44. Queensland Association of School Tuckshops. Tuckshop Snapshot 2008. The Association: Brisbane, QLD, 2008 (cited 4 May 2012); Available from http://www.qast.org.au/Portals/0/PDFS/MBF%20summary.pdf.
  45. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian Social Trends. Chapter 4, Volunteers ABS: Canberra, 2008 [cited 3 October 2011]; Available from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Chapter4102008.
  46. Sutherland R, Gill T, Binns C. Do parents, teachers, and health professionals support school-based obesity prevention? Nutr Diet 2004; 61: 137–144.
  47. Hagar MA, Wilson S, Pollack TH, Rooney PM. Response Rates for Mail Surveys of Non-profit Organisations: a review and empirical test. Nonprofit Volunt Sector Q 2003; 32: 252–267. | Article |
  48. Kaplowitz MD, Hadlock TD, Levine R. A comparison of web and mail survey response rates. Public Opin Q 2004; 1: 94–101. | Article |
  49. Cho H, Nadow MZ. Understanding barriers to implementing quality lunch and nutrition education. J Community Health 2004; 29: 421–435. | Article | PubMed |

Extra navigation