Can the Provision of Breakfast Benefit School Performance?

Studies of an association between school performance (enrollment, attendance, achievement, classroom behavior, and school drop-out) and nutritional status are discussed and the evidence of an effect of school meals evaluated. Many studies have shown associations between hunger, poor dietary intakes, stunting, underweight, and poor school performance after controlling for socioeconomic conditions. However, it remains possible that unmeasured socioeconomic variables could explain the relationship. Rigorous short-term studies of missing breakfast have generally found detrimental effects on children's cognition whereas studies of providing breakfast have shown benefits particularly in malnourished children. Classroom conditions may modify the effects of breakfast on behavior. There are extremely few longer term studies of the effects of giving school meals. Nearly all involved breakfast and very few had randomized controlled designs. Studies comparing participants with non-participants or comparing matched schools have found benefits (but bias due to self-selection) of receiving breakfast; inadequate matching of schools also remains possible. One longer term randomized controlled trial found benefits associated with attendance and arithmetic performance. In conclusion, most studies of giving breakfast have found benefits to school performance but many had serious design problems, were short-term, and were not conducted in the poorest countries. In order to advise policy makers correctly, there is an urgent need to run long-term randomized controlled trials of giving school meals in poor countries and to determine the effects of age and nutrition status of the children, the quality of the school, and the timing of the meal. The special needs of orphans should also be considered.

Child food insecurity increases risks posed by household food insecurity to young children's health

The US Food Security Scale (USFSS) measures household and child food insecurity (CFI) separately. Our goal was to determine whether CFI increases risks posed by household food insecurity (HFI) to child health and whether the Food Stamp Program (FSP) modifies these effects. From 1998 to 2004, 17,158 caregivers of children ages 36 mo were interviewed in six urban medical centers. Interviews included demographics, the USFSS, child health status, and hospitalization history. Ten percent reported HFI, 12% HFI and CFI (H&CFI). Compared with food-secure children, those with HFI had significantly greater adjusted odds of fair/poor health and being hospitalized since birth, and those with H&CFI had even greater adverse effects. Participation in the FSP modified the effects of FI on child health status and hospitalizations, reducing, but not eliminating, them. Children in FSP-participating households that were HFI had lower adjusted odds of fair/poor health [1.37 (95% CI, 1.06-1.77)] than children in similar non-FSP households [1.61 (95% CI, 1.31-1.98)]. Children in FSP-participating households that were H&CFI also had lower adjusted odds of fair/poor health [1.72 (95% CI, 1.34-2.21)] than in similar non-FSP households [2.14 (95% CI, 1.81-2.54)]. HFI is positively associated with fair/poor health and hospitalizations in young children. With H&CFI, odds of fair/poor health and hospitalizations are even greater. Participation in FSP reduces, but does not eliminate, effects of FI on fair/poor health.

An electrophysiological study of school-aged children with a history of failure to thrive during infancy

Sixty-five subjects, ages 8 to 12, participated in a visual electrophysiological study. Twenty-two of the subjects had received a diagnosis of nonorganic failure-to-thrive (FTT) before the age of three. The remaining 43 subjects had no history of FTT and served as Controls. IQs were obtained with the abbreviated WISC-III, and the Controls were split into two groups, LO IQ and HI IQ, to provide a LO IQ Control group with an average IQ equivalent to the FTT group. Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were recorded from five scalp locations during a cued continuous performance task (CPT). Subjects had to press a button every time they saw the letter "X" following the letter "A" (50 targets out of 400 stimuli). During the CPT, the FTT subjects made marginally more errors of omission to targets than the LO IQ Control group and significantly more errors of omission than the HI IQ Control subjects. The groups did not differ significantly on errors of commission (false alarms) or reaction times to targets. ERP averages revealed a group difference in amplitude in a late slow wave for the 50 non-X stimuli (false targets) that followed the letter A. This difference was greatest over frontal sites, where the FTT group had a more negative going slow wave than each control group. Late frontal negativity to No Go stimuli has been linked with post-decisional processing, notably in young children. Thus, the FTT subjects may have less efficient inhibitory processes, reflected by additional late frontal activation.