CGS

A1

PPHU

Lus

BHTpbwAPi

PMauCtcS

RsacAp

F

WD

ASU

Lbc

Baslp

MpaapAt

Rbrpteb

CaCimPp

F

FM

AM

Leba

Oi

MIsabe

Ro4Mwmfqaatpabt

Cai

F

MONDAY, OCTOBER 19

POSTER SESSION: SCIENCE/EDUCATION/MANAGEMENT/FOODSERVICE/CULINARY/RESEARCH

A

ost of Food Pantry Selection Using the USDA 2005 Dietaryuidelines for Americans for a Los Angeles County Food Pantryystem Serving Low Income People with HIV Infection

uthor(s): M. Fenton,1 J. L’Heureux,2 M. Cohen,3 J. Asvatanakul4;Office of AIDS Programs & Policy, Los Angeles County Department ofublic Health, Los Angeles, CA, 2Necessities of Life Program, AIDSroject Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 3Consulting Dietitian, Northollywood, CA, 4Department of Nutrition, Case Western Reserveniversity School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH

earning Outcome: To describe the method, benefits and challengestilizing the USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans in a food pantryerving low income people living with HIV infection.

ackground: In 2006, the Los Angeles County (LAC) Commission onIV approved Standards of Care (SOC) for Nutrition Support Services.his established minimum quality expectations for food pantries servingeople with HIV (PWH) infection. One standard specified nutritionreakdown of food provided to average 1,000 calories/day or 7,000 calories/eek and meet at least 50% of the 2005 USDA Dietary Guidelines formericans (DGA) at the 2,000-calorie level. The Necessities of Liferogram (NOLP) of AIDS Project Los Angeles has nine food pantry sites

n Los Angeles County and over 2300 clients.

rogram/Methods: APLA adopted the standard of care in 2006.icrosoft Excel spreadsheets were developed to catalog monthly foods lists

ccording to DGA food groups and subgroups, along with food description,nit size, serving yields per unit, to verify meeting the standard of care.ost of purchased food and fair market value of donated food were added

o spreadsheets. Analysis was made comparing caloric and nutrientontent, and food groups, to meet the SOC as well as the cost to meet theOC.

esult: Analysis shows inconsistency in meeting goals for food groups,ubgroups and selected nutrients. Challenges include budget constraintsnd dependency on limited availability of foods from donations, USDAommodities, and the regional food bank. However, using the SOC guidedPLA to focus energy, time and money, to procure nutrient dense and lessrocessed foods, and to enable PWH to better meet established guidelines.

unding Disclosure: None

CS

A1

UN

LDS

B(TAAm

MrynRNH

RsosC6S7

Cmua

ho’s Your Patty: Sensory Evaluation of Burger Patties Made withifferent Types of Meat or Plant-Based Products

uthor(s): S. Rohall, J. Ballintine, J. Vowels, L. Wexler,. Bianco-Simeral, K. Goto; Nutrition and Food Sciences, California Stateniversity, Chico, Chico, CA

earning Outcome: To determine the sensory properties of four types ofurger patties: full-fat beef, lean beef, turkey, or soy/rice, as evaluated byonsumers and trained panelists.

ackground: Many college students seek ‘tasteful’ and ‘healthy’ burgerst campus dining facilities. The objective of this study was to examine theensory properties of four types of burger patties: traditional full-fat beef,ean beef, turkey, or soy/rice, as evaluated by consumers and trainedanelists.

ethods: A complete block design was employed to evaluate the 4 burgeratties. Fifty untrained college students were recruited for consumercceptance using a 9-point scale hedonic test. Six panelists were recruitednd trained to evaluate the intensity of ten sensory burger pattyroperties using the quantitative descriptive analysis (QDA) method.nalysis of variance was used to detect significant differences among the

reatments. Statistics were reported at a significance level of 0.05.

esults: Consumer acceptance mean scores for full-fat beef (control), leaneef, turkey, and soy/rice patties were 5.98, 6.68, 5.50 and 5.56,espectively. The test results demonstrated no preference of the controlatty over turkey or soy, but a significant preference of the lean beef overhe other treatments. QDA results showed that flavor, spiciness, andlasticity significantly varied across each treatment. Panelists rated leaneef as significantly more elastic than all other patties.

onclusion: Our research indicates that college consumers may possiblyccept the three healthier substitutes for traditional full-fat beef patties.onsumer satisfaction of healthier patty substitutes should also be

nvestigated in primary and secondary schools. Healthier patty substitutesay help fulfill the nutrition requirements of the National School Mealrograms and support US federal guideline recommendations for leanerrotein sources.

unding Disclosure: None

F-68 / September 2009 Suppl 3—Abstracts Volume 109 Number 9

actors Influencing Competence of Food Service Directors inanaging National School Lunch Programs

uthor(s): J. Kandiah, N. Parkinson, V. Amend; Ball State University,uncie, IN

earning Outcome: Participants will gain a better understanding of howducational attainment, food and nutrition knowledge, attitudes,ehaviors, and training of food service directors (FSD) influences theirbility to competently manage National School Lunch Program.

bjective: To examine factors affecting food service directors’ competencen managing NSLP.

ethods: Four-hundred and eleven FSD who managed the NSLP inndiana were electronically or surface mailed a validated and reliableurvey. Multiple choice, true/false questions, or Likert scales were used tossess demographical, nutrition training, knowledge, attitudes, andehaviors. Data was statistically analyzed and significance wasstablished at p� 0.05.

esults: A total of 125 (n� 116 females, n� 9 males) completed the on-liner paper version of the questionnaire. Majority were between 41-50y (n� 56,6.4%), with 72.8% having had either high school or some college education.ore than half (57.5%, n� 69) received nutrition education only throughorkshops, conferences and seminars, with 50% having professionalembership with the American School Food Service Association. Unlike other

ood service professionals, registered dietitians (n�6, 100%) answered moreuestions correctly in the food and nutrition knowledge section. A post-hocnalysis showed there was a significant difference (p�0.036) in nutritionttitudes indicating that FSD 41-50y had a more positive attitude comparedo those 61-70y. In the nutrition behavior section, most FSD indicatedarticipating only “sometimes” in observing and being involved in allctivities in the lunchroom. Irrespective of age, FSD (87.5%) who had takenoth nutrition courses and attended workshops “agreed” or “totally agreed”hey felt competent to help teachers in nutrition instruction.

onclusion: This research suggests that FSD with positive nutritionttitudes and nutrition education/training appeared to be more competentn successfully managing NSLP.

unding Disclosure: None

omparison of SNDA III Data Analyzed Using Two Differenttandards

uthor(s): L. Cashman,1 E. Bergman,1 T. Englund,1 C. Oakley2;Nutrition, Exercise, and Health Sciences, Central Washingtonniversity, Ellensburg, WA, 2Nutrition, Exercise, and Health Sciences,ational Food Service Management Institute, University, MS

earning Outcome: To define differences found between using USietary Guideline and School Meal Initiative Standards when analyzingNDA III data for the National School Lunch Program Data Set.

ackground: An objective of the National School Lunch ProgramNSLP) is to ensure that all children have access to healthy meals.he Food and Nutrition Service of the United States Department ofgriculture (USDA) sponsored the third School Nutrition Dietaryssessment Study (SNDA III) to provide information about schooleals and whether they meet Calorie and nutrient standards.

ethods: School meal data were collected from a nationallyepresentative sample of 397 schools during the 2004-2005 schoolear and analyzed for Calorie and nutrient content. At least twoutrient standards may be used to analyze the NSLP, the 1989ecommended Dietary Allowances (1989 RDA), developed byational Research Council, or the School Meal Initiative (SMI) forealthy Children, developed by the USDA.

esults: When the SNDA III data are compared to the two nutrienttandards mentioned above, differences were found in the proportionf those schools that met the standards. For example the SMI calorietandard for a 10 year old fifth grader is expected to average 785alories per day. Using the 1989 RDA values, the standard is set at67 kcals for the same child. Analyzing the SNDA III data using theMI standards results in 53 % of the schools meeting the standard of85 Calories offered per day. 71% meet the 1989 RDA standard.

onclusions: SNDA III analysis related to percentage of schoolseeting Calorie and nutrient standards differs based on the standard

sed. The standard chosen may influence decisions concerning thedequacy of school feeding programs.

unding Disclosure: National Food Service Management Institute