We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
To evaluate the profile of food acquisition in the National School Feeding Program according to the extent and purpose of food processing in three municipalities of southern Brazil during the implementation period of Law 11.947/2009.
Design
Descriptive cross-sectional study. Data for 2008–2010 involved quantities, prices and types of suppliers for food items purchased. In total, 1529 purchases were analysed. The items were classified into the following groups: G1 (unprocessed/minimally processed), G2 (culinary ingredients), G3 (processed), G4 (ultra-processed). Quantities of purchased foods were converted into energy and average prices ($US/4184 kJ (1000 kcal)) were calculated. The proportion of each food group in total purchases was expressed as both a percentage of total energy and a percentage of total expenditure. Data analysis was carried out in Stata version 12.1.
Setting
Three municipalities in southern Brazil.
Results
Relative contribution to total energy purchased was high for G1 (49·8 %; G2, 23·8 %; G3, 4·5 %; G4, 21·8 %). Among acquisitions from family farming, G1 represented 51·3 % of the total energy purchased; G2, 9·9 %; G3, 19·7 %; G4, 19·0 %. Total cost was as follows: G1, 61·6 %; G2, 3·9 %; G3, 18·5 %; G4, 16·0 %. Prices for food products from family farms were consistently higher. Average price from family farms was 1·3; from conventional suppliers, 0·9.
Conclusions
The implementation of Law 11.947/2009 produced a positive effect on the regional profile of food purchases for the School Feeding Program. However, there is still considerable potential to promote health by strengthening relationships between family farming and school feeding.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.