Implementation of a regulatory food policy to reduce availability of energy-dense foods in Costa Rican high schools Melissa L Jensen1,2,* , Wendy Gonzalez3, Carolina Bolaños-Palmieri4 , Rafael Monge-Rojas5 and Edward A Frongillo6 1School of Nutrition, University of Costa Rica, Ciudad de la Investigación, Finca 2, San José, Sabanilla, Costa Rica: 2RuddCenter for Food Policy, University of Connecticut, OneConstitution Plaza, Suite 600, Hartford, CT 06103, USA: 3Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition, Geneva, Switzerland: 4InterAmerican Center for Global Health, San José, Costa Rica: 5Nutrition and Health Unit, Costa Rican Institute of Research and Education on Nutrition and Health, Tres Ríos, Costa Rica: 6Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA Submitted 20 November 2020: Final revision received 28 May 2021: Accepted 13 July 2021 Abstract Objective: To assess the extent to which mandatory Guidelines to improve the school food environment were being implemented in Costa Rican high schools and to explore the perspectives of key policy actors towards the Guidelines. Design: Semi-structured interviews and site observations. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and imported to NVivo 12 for analysis. Inductive and deductive themes were identified, and elements of the RE-AIM framework and the social process framework were used when classifying these themes. Setting: Sixteen public high schools in San José, Costa Rica. Participants: High school principal and kiosk concessionaires Results: Products that did not adhere to the Guidelines were still widely available in schools, and amongst the most prevalent challenges to implementation that emerged from our interviews, were a lack of understanding of the policy content, a lack of monitoring and accountability, and competing values amongst actors which affected their views on the role that the school must have in offering a healthy food environment. Conclusion: Most products offered in high schools did not meet the criteria required by the mandatory Guidelines, and several contextual factors were found to influence implementation. Strengthening the implementation of the Costa Rican Guidelines will require further actions at the governmental and school levels. Keywords School environment Adolescent health School food policy School wellness Globally and in Latin America, childhood overweight and obesity is a public health concern(1). Adolescence is an important growth and developmental period in which dietary quality has been found to be lower than during other stages such as early childhood or adulthood(2). Adolescents’ diets in Costa Rica are low fruits and vegeta- bles (˜125 g/d), and their intake of added sugars at ˜20 % of total energy intake(3) is two to four times WHO’s recom- mendations (5 to 10 % of total energy intake)(4). Food policies can affect diet, among other mechanisms, by providing an enabling environment for healthy prefer- ences, encouraging the reassessment of unhealthy prefer- ences, and stimulating a food system response(5). Due to the large amount of time that adolescents spend at school, the availability of healthy foods and beverages in this setting is important for the promotion of health and well-being(6,7). The implementation of school food environment policies has been associated with reduced availability of foods that are high in fat, added sugars, Na, and total energy, and increased availability of healthier options(8,9). Reviews also suggest improvements in dietary intake(10,11) and weight status(11). The passing of a school food policy at the local or national level, however, does not necessarily mean it will be successfully implemented, and that its intent will be achieved. A growing body of literature has examined the factors that influence implementation, including enablers and barriers to compliance(12,13). Policy implementation might be hindered by a variety of financial, physical and social factors, whereas adequate funding, positive stake- holders’ attitudes and good policy communication have been found to promote better implementation(13). Despite this Public Health Nutrition: page 1 of 13 doi:10.1017/S1368980021003013 *Corresponding author: Email melissa.jensen@ucr.ac.cr © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Nutrition Society Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. 19 Aug 2021 at 12:53:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9830-076X https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3186-6734 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980021003013 mailto:melissa.jensen@ucr.ac.cr https://www.cambridge.org/core evidence, research on school food policy implementation in the context of low- and middle-income countries is limited and much needed. In 2012, the Costa Rican government approved an exec- utive mandatory decree (No36910-MEP-S, hereafter referred to as the ‘Guidelines’) which was required to be implemented with the start of the school year (February 2012) in all primary and secondary public schools. The intent of the Guidelines was to improve the school food environment and to safeguard students’ well-being, by restricting products and preparations which are high in fat, total sugars, and Na, among others. To date, the imple- mentation of this policy has not been evaluated with the exception of a report in 2014 that documented the proc- esses of policy development and initial adoption(14). Understanding how andwhy policies aiming to improve the school food environment is successfully implemented once enacted is important to increase the likelihood of achieving the policy aim. The objectives of this study were therefore: (i) to assess the extent to which the Guidelines were being implemented in Costa Rican high schools and (ii) to explore the perspectives of key policy actors towards the Guidelines, including the contextual factors that might influence their implementation. Methods Study setting The education system in Costa Rica is organised into regional directions and circuits. Each of the 27 regional directions nationwide comprises a number of circuits, and each circuit comprises several public and private, urban and rural schools(15). Elementary schools in Costa Rica include grades 1–6, whereas high schools include grades 7–11 (in some cases, e.g. technical high schools – grade 12 is also required). Most public elementary and high schools offer breakfast and lunch meals to students, with funding from the Programa Nacional de Alimentación Escolar (PANEA). This programme is universal in elemen- tary schools, but targets adolescents with economic, nutri- tional or psychosocial risk that qualify to receive the benefit in high schools(16). Meals are served in a school cafeteria (comedor), and although there are differences within schools and regions, these have typically consisted of rice and beans (or an alternative grain and/or legume) with sides including a source of animal protein and fruits or vegetables. Each school has a School Board (Junta de Educación o Administrativa), which is the main entity responsible for spending the funds received from PANEA, both for food acquisition and hiring personnel. Schools addi- tionally have a Health and Nutrition Committee, which in co- ordination with the School Board monitor the policies related to the provision of the school meals. In addition to the meals provided by PANEA, students can purchase foods inside the school through small food kiosks (sodas escolares). Most commonly, the kiosk offers a variety of snack foods and beverages, although depend- ing on the size of the kiosk and the cooking equipment within, some might also offer hot meals for purchase. These school kiosks are administered by private entities or individuals (hereafter, ‘concessionaire’) who must com- pete in an annual public bidding process managed by the School Board. The School Board can allocate the funds col- lected as rent from the kiosk as they consider most appro- priate for the school needs. In the past, school food kiosks were not subject to regulation regarding the nutritional quality of foods and beverages sold to students. As a result of a process that started in 2006(14), in May 2011, the Guidelines were published in La Gaceta, the official diary of the government of Costa Rica, for public comments. In January 2012, revised Guidelines were published as an executive mandatory decree, with support from the Ministry of Public Education (MPE) and the Ministry of Health (MH), and the implementation date was defined for February 2012. As shown in Table 1, the Guidelines comprise several articles which establish, among other dispositions, nutrition criteria that products sold in the kiosk must abide to both for products prepared on site and to pre-packaged prod- ucts. For pre-packaged products, the criteria specified required specific nutrient cut points per 100 g or ml, which should be verified on the nutrition facts panel (NFP) of products offered. From the information that is publicly available, schools were for the most part expected to implement the Guidelines without much support provided by MPE and the MH. Some of the key difficulties that were evident in the initial adoption stage of the decree were(14) (1) a lack of information in schools about the Guidelines; (2) a lack of skills to interpret NFP information; (3) a lack of resources to hire professionals to provide technical support in this matter and (4) finally a lack of didactic materials or tools to facilitate interpretation of the Guidelines. Several actions were taken in response, which included uploading the Guidelines to the website of MPE, printing hard copies of the Guidelines and sending to schools, creating an inspec- tion form to be used by the MH and MPE when assessing compliance and creating a digital tool to help assess prod- ucts NFP, among others(14). Recruitment and study sample Sixteen high schools were initially contacted (nine urban and seven rural), all located in the province of San José, Costa Rica. These schools were selected with probability pro- portional to size(3). Because theGuidelines are notmandatory in private schools, only public schools were included. Furthermore, since this project was part of a larger initiative examining adolescent diet(3), by design our sample was restricted to high schools, even though the Guidelines apply to both elementary schools and high schools. 2 ML Jensen et al. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. 19 Aug 2021 at 12:53:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. https://www.cambridge.org/core Each high school was first sent a letter addressed to the school principal explaining that they had been selected to participate in the study. To avoid reactivity bias during data collection, the Guidelines were not mentioned when describing the objective of the study. A week after sending the letter, we contacted schools by telephone to schedule interviews with school principal and kiosk concessionaire, who were considered important policy actors, due to their role in the implementation of the Guidelines. Of the sixteen schools initially contacted, twelve agreed to participate. The remaining four schools cited either having no time or interest in participating in the study (see online Supplemental Table 1). School principals and kiosk con- cessionaires did not receive any incentives for their partici- pation in the study. Instrument development Two semi-structured interview guides, one for each type of actor (principal and concessionaire), were developed based on previous literature(17,18), the study’s objectives, and elements of the RE-AIM(19,20) and social process(21) frameworks. Supplemental Tables 2 and 3 display the inter- view guide for school principals and kiosk concessionaires, respectively. Both guides were comprised of main ques- tions and probes, the first eliciting opinions about students’ health and the role of the school in relation to students’ health, and later about food availability, changes in recent years (if any), and reasons for these changes at the school level. To gauge the awareness of participants regarding the existence of the Guidelines, these were not mentioned at the beginning of the interview. Later, questions focused Table 1 Summary of the guidelines* Section Description Chapter I. Overview Articles 1–3 Includes the general objective of the guidelines, as well as the definitions of key concepts used throughout the document. Chapter II. Administration of the school kiosk Articles 4–12 Includes administrative details regarding the functioning of the school kiosk including: • Process for granting a food kiosk concession • Concessionaire’s rights and responsibilities • School Board responsibility • Food and beverage marketing restriction • Appropriate use of funds generated by the school store Chapter III. Foods offered at the school kiosk Article 13 • Foods sold must promote and enable healthy eating. • Fruits and vegetables should be offered daily. • All foods should hold the registration with the Ministry of Health. Article 14 About foods and beverages prepared on site: • A maximum of 10 g of sugar, per 250 ml glass of any beverage is allowed. • Deep-fried cooking method is prohibited. • A maximum of two teaspoons (10 g) of oil, mayonnaise, cream cheese, sour cream or ketchup per serving is allowed. • A maximum of one teaspoon (5 g) of margarine or butter per serving is allowed. • Spreading fats should be free of trans fatty acids. • Processed meats used for preparations should contain less than 25 g of fat per 100 g product. Article 15 The following pre-packaged foods are prohibited: • Beverages and snacks ( : : : ) in which the first ingredient is sugar or fat (and alternate names for these products. • Beverages ( : : : ) that contain more than 15 g of sugar per 250 ml serving. • Carbonated beverages, including those designated as ‘light’, and energy drinks. • Sausages not designated as ‘light’ • Foods prepared with lard, oils or margarines that contain trans fatty acids. • Pre-packaged food product ( : : : ) containing more than 12 g of fat, 6 g of saturated fat, 20 g of sugar, 400 mg of Na or 1674 kJ (400 kcal) in a portion of 100 g of the product. • Pre-packaged non-dairy beverage product ( : : : ) containing more than 2 g of fat, 1 g of saturated fat, 6 g of sugar, 50 mg of Na or more than 251 kJ (60 kcal) in a portion of 100 ml of product. • Pre-packaged dairy beverage product ( : : : ) containing more than 2 g of fat, 1·3 g of saturated fat, 6 g of sugar, 70 mg of Na or more than 293 kJ (70 kcal) in a portion of 100 ml of product. • Beverages that do not contain added sugars or non-nutritive sweeteners are excluded. Article 16–19 • Service offered by the school kiosk requires control by the Ministry of Health, as well as by the Ministry of Public Education through the school principal, the Supervisor of Schools, the Health and Nutrition Committee†, and the School Administrative Board. • More details for monitoring and control mechanisms are included. Chapter IV. Final dispositions Articles 20–23 • Chapter includes several transitory articles, which indicate details such as more stringent cut points in 2013 and 2014 for the pre-packaged foods and beverages (Article 15). *Source: Executive Decree 36 910-MEP-S, latest version 2 July 2013(33). †Integrated at least by a teacher designated by the school principal, a member of the Parents Association, a member of the Student Government, and a community member. Regulatory food policy in Costa Rican schools 3 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. 19 Aug 2021 at 12:53:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980021003013 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980021003013 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980021003013 https://www.cambridge.org/core more on the Guidelines themselves, including knowledge about them, perceived reactions from different actors and perceived level of implementation, among others. In addition to interview guides, a checklist was devel- oped to assess the availability of foods and beverages pre- pared in the kiosk, e.g. frescos (traditional beverage made by blending fruits, sugar and water), pastries and sand- wiches. The items included in this checklist were based on previous research conducted in Costa Rican school kiosks(22,23). At the end of the checklist, we asked ten close-ended questions to concessionaires about topics covered in the Guidelines, including amounts and types of fats used when preparing foods, presence of food adver- tising, and availability of drinking tap water for students, among others. Instruments were pilot tested in two schools that were not part of our sample, and minor changes were made to improve the clarity of questions and flow of the visit. Data collection The first author visited all high schools to conduct site observations and interviews. The school visit included (i) the interview with the school principal, (ii) the interview with the school kiosk concessionaire and (iii) the site obser- vation. Interviews were audio-recorded, and each took 40–60min to complete. The duration of the site observation varied depending on the number of products available, between 30 and 90 min. For the observation, the checklist was used to assess the foods and beverages available to stu- dents prepared on-site, whereas for packaged foods, the observation involved taking photographs of the front-of- package label of all items available on the day of the visit. The photographs enabled us to document details of prod- ucts, such as brands and flavours, which might vary in their nutrition content. A total of 23 people participated, 12 principals and 11 school kiosk concessionaires. One concessionaire declined participation. Data collection took place from August 2015 to June 2016. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Bioethics Committee of the University of Costa Rica, and all participants signed an informed con- sent prior to being interviewed. Data analysis For the site observation, information from all photographed packaged foods was entered into a spreadsheet that con- tained product name, brand and flavour. If a product was offered in more than one size, it was only recorded once since nutrition profile per 100 g or 100 ml does not differ by product package sizes. The nutrition information of products was retrieved from an online database that stores NFP data of packaged foods (http://www.infonutcr.com/). When a product was not available in this database, the infor- mation was searched online on the food company’s website. Using this information, we then classified each product as adheringor not adhering to theGuidelines. An adheringprod- uct met thresholds for nutrients of concern (energy, fat, satu- rated fat, sugar and Na) and did not list sugar or fat as the first ingredient in the list reported on label (which is also stipulated in the Guidelines). Information from foods prepared on-site (i.e. the checklist) was also entered into the spread sheet. Since Guidelines are specific and different for packaged v. non-packaged products, we assessed and report on the avail- ability of these separately. All interviews were transcribed verbatim (n 23) in Spanish. A subset comprising a third of the schools (n 8, from 4 schools) of these was first analysed using line-by- line open coding to assess emergent themes(24) by two independent analysts, one of which had conducted all interviews. This first subset that was analysed was selected attempting to capture breadth in content and diversity in themes. Both analysts were native Spanish speakers, profi- cient in English and with experience in qualitative research methods. Based on these emergent inductive themes, as well as deductive themes that were added from the interview guide, a preliminary codebook was developed, and themes were grouped into categories and sub-categories providing insight into the study’smain study objectives. The sample size was sufficiently large to reach data saturation. When grouping themes into categories, elements of the RE-AIM(20,25) and the social process frameworks(21) were used (Table 2). The RE-AIM framework includes five dimen- sionswhich are important to considerwhen evaluating public health initiatives: reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementa- tion and maintenance(19). Given the qualitative nature of this study, the latter threeof thesedimensionswere of interest dur- ing analysis. The social process framework recognises the importance of values – things and events in life forwhichpeo- ple desire and aim. Power, enlightenment, wealth, wellbeing, skill, affection, respect and rectitude are the core values per this framework(21). In that sense, understanding how these values are presentwhen peoplework towards achieving their goals can shed light on reasons underlying their motivation and commitment towards a specific policy. The use of these frameworks was helpful both in the development of the inter- view guides and during the identification and coding of themes from the interviews. Following the identification of these themes, the rest of the interviews were coded, four schools (n 8) by one ana- lyst and four schools (n 7) by the other analyst. A summary matrix was created for each school by the analyst coding the interview to enable discussion on findings and compar- isons between schools and actors. Data were stored and organised for analyses using QSR NVivo 12 (QSR International, Melbourne, Australia). Quotes were trans- lated into English after completing the data analysis. Results Principals were 32 to 60 years of age, and concessionaires were from 22 to 72 years of age (Table 3). Education level 4 ML Jensen et al. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. 19 Aug 2021 at 12:53:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. http://www.infonutcr.com/ https://www.cambridge.org/core was lower for school concessionaires compared to princi- pals. Enrolment in high schools ranged from 222 to 1800 students. Four principals and four concessionaires had been at the visited high school for the period of time since the Guidelines came into effect. What were school food kiosks selling? A total of 587 unique packaged items were offered in the schools; availability per school ranged from 20 to 155 prod- ucts. Candy/chocolates, savoury snacks, sweet snacks and sweetened non-dairy drinks were the most common items (22·3 %, 21·1 %, 16·0 % and 14·0 %, respectively), available in all schools. We could not determine adherence to the Guidelines of 47·5 % of these products (n 279), either because they were not available in the dataset from which NFP information was retrieved or because they lacked the NFP altogether, given that reporting this information is not mandatory in Costa Rica for all food products. The majority of the products for which adherence was not possible to determine were from food categories that are high in sugar, fats or sugar: candy/chocolates (32·3 %), salty snacks (22·6 %), frozen treats (20·8 %) and sweet snacks (9·7 %). Of the 308 items that were assessed, 76·6 % did not meet the nutrition criteria required by the Guidelines. The lowest adherence was with the energy, sugar and fat recommen- dations, forwhich 54·2 %, 49·4 % and 47·7 %of products did not meet the Guidelines, respectively. None of the sweet and savoury snacks, breakfast cereals, or chocolates avail- able met the Guidelines because they exceeded one or more of the thresholds for the nutrients of concern included in the regulation (Table 4). Regarding non-packaged products (i.e. prepared at the kiosk), natural fruit-based drinks (i.e. frescos naturales) and coffee were the most commonly available beverages. Kiosk concessionaires reported not being able to deter- mine the amount of sugar added to prepared drinks. All schools reported having access to drinking water (from tap) for student’s consumption. Every school offered some on-site prepared food; hamburgers, sandwiches and fruits were the most common (Table 5). Most school kiosks reported following the Guidelines regarding food prepara- tion. Themajority did not sell deep-fried preparations (n 8), abided by the amount of added fat per portion permitted (n 9), used oils free of trans-fat for cooking (n 8), or used spreads and dressings free of trans-fat (n 7). Only two schools reported adhering to the processed meat Guideline, while half exclusively used products with a nutrition fact label. Of ten schools, eight reported following the food marketing Guidelines, which prohibits any type of food marketing inside the school property (Table 6). Perspectives of policy actors Changes in response to the Guidelines In five of the twelve schools at least one of the interviewees had experienced the periodwhen theGuidelines came into effect (February 2012) at the school that was visited, either in the role of school principal or kiosk concessionaire. Actors became aware of the regulations mainly via the pub- lication of the decree in the national newspaper (La Gaceta), Table 2 Key concepts and definitions from the RE-AIM and social process frameworks Concept Definition Framework Sample theme from interviews Adoption Organisations, institutions or governing bodies that pass or decide to implement a policy and includes the allocation of resources for enforcement, if applicable(19). RE-AIM Difficulty in understanding the Guidelines Changes in response to Guidelines Implementation Applying the policy as planned, adequately enforcing it, and ensuring ongoing and consistent compliance with the core components of the policy(19). RE-AIM Monitoring and accountability Outside vendors Kiosk profitability Maintenance Long-term assessment of policy reinvention and varia- tions in policy interpretation and impact. Evaluated at two levels: the target population reached and the organisations or legislative bodies that enacted or adopted the policy(19). RE-AIM Monitoring and accountability Role of home Values Medium of exchange in human interactions. A desired object or situation – things and events in life that people desire and aim for(21). Social process Kiosk profitability – value of wealth Students purchasing capacity – value of well-being Table 3 Sociodemographic characteristics of study participants Study participants Principals (n 12) Concessionaires (n 11) Sex Male 8 4 Female 4 7 Age 20–29 0 1 30–39 2 4 40–49 5 1 50–59 4 4 60 or more 1 1 Education level Less than high school – 4 High school complete – 2 More than high school 12 2 Number of students in school <500 2 500–999 3 1000 or more 7 Regulatory food policy in Costa Rican schools 5 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. 19 Aug 2021 at 12:53:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. https://www.cambridge.org/core as well as through media coverage in the press, letters sent to the school by theMinistry of Education and formal announce- ments during regional principal meetings. When referring to changes that were implemented fol- lowing the issuance of the Guidelines, all five schools men- tioned stopping the sales of carbonated drinks – in one school they had already banned them prior to the Guidelines – and four out of five schools additionally men- tioned banning the sales of deep-fried foods, such as empanadas (deep-fried corn dough turnover filled with meat, chopped potato, mashed beans or cheese), French fries and fried chicken. As expressed by some: ‘Ever since the Guidelines they’ve had to adjust to no sugar ( : : : ) drinks used to havemore sugar, now they don’t. Now chewing gum is not sold, candies nor chocolates are sold, there are a bunch of things that cannot be sold’ (Principal 01). ‘Soft drinks were a huge change. It has always been one of the largest selling items ( : : : ) Coca Cola sales came down’ (Concessionaire 06) Other changes that were mentioned to a lesser extent were decreasing the amount of sugar in drinks they prepared on site, using less sauces (i.e. ketchup and mayonnaise) in sandwiches and preparations, replacing fried packaged chips and snacks with baked ones, and preparing more foods on site instead of selling packaged products. One school mentioned making changes to the advertising dis- played in the kiosk following the Guidelines: ‘We got ridT ab le 4 A va ila bi lit y of pa ck ag ed fo od s so ld in sc ho ol ki os ks ,a cc or di ng to th e gu id el in es F oo d pr od uc t N o. sc ho ol s* P ro du ct s so ld † A dh er en ce N on -a dh er en ce A dh er en ce cr ite ria th at pr od uc t do es no t m ee t‡ n % n % n % H ig h in en er gy H ig h in fa t H ig h in sa tu ra te d fa t H ig h in su ga r H ig h in N a F irs t in gr ed ie nt T ot al 11 30 8 10 0 72 23 ·4 23 6 (7 6· 6) 76 ·6 16 7 14 7 12 1 15 2 66 35 B ev er ag es N on -d ai ry dr in k 11 58 18 ·8 29 50 ·0 29 50 ·0 1 0 1 29 0 0 D ai ry dr in k 9 30 9· 7 11 36 ·7 19 63 ·3 12 9 4 12 1 0 B ot tle d w at er 7 4 1· 3 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C ar bo na te d dr in ks § 2 2 0· 6 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 F oo ds C an dy 11 16 5· 2 6 37 ·5 10 62 ·5 3 0 0 9 0 7 S w ee t sn ac k 11 67 21 ·8 0 0 67 10 0 54 51 47 58 10 13 S av ou ry sn ac k 11 61 19 ·8 0 0 61 10 0 59 57 42 2 51 1 F ro ze n tr ea ts 10 20 6· 5 17 85 ·0 3 15 ·0 0 3 3 1 0 0 C er ea lb ar 8 14 4· 5 5 35 ·7 9 64 ·3 3 3 2 7 0 0 C ho co la te 8 25 8· 1 0 0 25 10 0 25 23 22 22 0 14 B re ak fa st ce re al 7 11 3· 6 0 0 11 10 0 10 1 0 11 4 0 *N um be r of sc ho ol s of fe rin g ea ch ty pe of pr od uc t. † O nl y th e pr od uc ts w ith en ou gh in fo rm at io n to be cl as si fie d ac co rd in g to th e G ui de lin es at th e tim e of th e an al ys is . ‡ N um be r of pr od uc ts in ea ch ca te go ry no ta dh er in g to di ffe re nt cr ite ria of th e G ui de lin es . §A ll ca rb on at ed be ve ra ge s, re ga rd le ss of th ei r nu tr iti on al co m po si tio n, ar e pr oh ib ite d. Table 5 Availability of non-packaged products sold Product Schools (n 10)* Beverages Natural fruit-based ‘fresco’ 8 Coffee 8 Artificially flavoured, with sugar (Tang®, Zuko®) 6 Tea 6 Concentrate fruit-based ‘fresco’ 2 Foods Sandwiches 9 Hamburgers 8 Fruit, whole or cut 8 Vegetable-based salads 7 Burritos 6 Savoury baked goods 6 Fruit salads 6 Empanadas 4 Hotdogs 4 Tortillas 4 Frozen treats 3 Gelatin dessert 2 Nachos, tacos or quesadillas 2 Pizza 2 Preparations with fruit (other than salad) 2 Preparations with vegetables (other than salads) 2 Rice, beans and egg 2 Baked goods, sweet 1 *Two schools declined participation in Kiosk visit. 6 ML Jensen et al. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. 19 Aug 2021 at 12:53:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. https://www.cambridge.org/core of all the Coke posters and replaced them with fruits and vegetables’ (Principal 03). Kiosk profitability Both principals and concessionaires perceived the kiosk as a business that is intended to be profitable. Even though in more than half the schools (seven of twelve) participants were not directly involved in the initial adoption of the Guidelines, in all except for one school, participants con- sidered that adhering to the Guidelines implied a reduction in kiosk profitability. This was due to the decrease in rev- enue of sales from popular products such as carbonated drinks, iced tea and other sweetened beverages, packaged snacks and cookies, chocolates and deep-fried foods such as French fries and empanadas. One school principal said ‘sales collapsed’ and as a result, they had to reduce the amount that the concessionaire paid in rent to the school (Principal 06), two additional school principals also men- tioned having to decrease the cost of rent for the kiosk con- cessionaire. Others explained ‘We have to be realistic, they’d go bankrupt if they only sell fruits and vegetables. ( : : : ) with the change it was not going to be enough for electricity, water, employees ( : : : ) All the kiosks at the national level deal with supply and demand, that is the problem we have’ (Principal 04) ‘We have to be honest, it is not to our best interest economically to subject yourself to the restrictions [of theGuidelines], because the business will not pro- duce enough for the expenses. One has to go a little out of it to cover expenses’ (Concessionaire 08) ‘If they take away more of the products I sell, having a kiosk would become non-profitable’ (Concessionaire 11) A few concessionaires explained their concern of low prof- itability, including ‘It’s not business’, in reference to new sandwiches and smoothies she made in compliance with the Guidelines which were not well received (Concessionaire 02), ‘it’s unfair for me as a worker’, who considered that she should be able to sell a little bit more (Concessionaire 10) and ‘If I have a business, call it a “pulpería” [small food store typical in Costa Rica], a kiosk, or a hardware store, I want to have it full of everything people want, and whatever people want that I do not have, I would find a way to have it’ (Concessionaire 06). In two of the schools, the concessionaire had resigned given the new regulations and the implications for profit. Whether there was a loss of profitability, however, also depended on whether the Guidelines were enforced at the school. One concessionaire, for example, mentioned that her grandmother, a concessionaire at a different school, had lost business after the enactment of the Guidelines, but this was not a problem for her, as she had ‘permission from the principal to sell [any type of food]’ (Concessionaire 04). Some referred to strategies to mitigate loss of revenue or lessons learned with time. For example, one concession- aire reflected on the relative benefit of selling packaged products v. preparing her own food to sell: ‘We are talking of a utility margin of 14 colones [national currency] per package ( : : : ) take rent out, electricity, water, employees, income tax ( : : : ) you realize that you ended up working for them [for the food industry company] ( : : : ) with prepared foods the utility margin is higher’ (Concessionaire 05). Given that some schools used the kiosk’s rental income to complement the funding of the government-subsidised school meal programme, the perception of reduced profit- ability could result in compromised motivation for both the kiosk concessionaire and the principal to implement the Guidelines. ‘The resources for the school meals come from two sources: PANEA’s budget and the school kiosk rent ( : : : ) if something is lacking we have to cover it from Table 6 Level of adherence to the Guidelines criteria for non-packaged products Criteria* Schools (n 10) Always adheres Sometimes adheres Never adheres Cannot determine Sugar per 250 ml beverage not exceeding 10 g 1 0 0 9 Deep-fried cooking method is prohibited 8 2 0 0 Amount of added fat per portion served (oil, mayonnaise, cream cheese, sour cream or sauces) 9 1 0 0 Amount of added butter or margarine 9 1 0 0 Use only trans fatty acid free oils 8 0 2 0 Use only trans fatty acid free spread fats or dressings 7 1 2 0 Only use low-fat processed meat 2 4 1 3 All pre-packaged products used must have a nutrition facts panel label 5 3 2 0 Presence of food advertising† 8 2 0 0 Access to drinking water (from tap) for student’s consumption 10 0 0 0 *Adherence level referred by each kiosk concessionaire during observation visit, via ten close-ended questions. †This criterion was assessed by observing kiosk building and surroundings. Regulatory food policy in Costa Rican schools 7 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. 19 Aug 2021 at 12:53:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. https://www.cambridge.org/core our own budget or sometimes organize Bingos [popular fundraising activity in Costa Rica]’ (Principal 06) ‘( : : : ) the School Board doesn’t have enough to pay another cook [for the school meal program] ( : : : ) if I wanted to provide lunch for 600 students, I have to pay another cook ( : : : ) the subsidy we receive from the Ministry of Education is only enough for one’ (Principal 01) One school principal explained the economic trade-offs between having a kiosk that sold more per month v. one that sold less: the more a kiosk sells per month, the more it is willing to pay in rent, benefiting therefore the School Board and the school itself: ‘It’s not the same to have a kiosk that sells onemillion colones per month, than one that sells 3 million. The school board could award the kiosk for one million if it will sell 3 million, but if it only sells 500 000, it can award it at the most for 100 000 or such’ (Principal 10) This trade-off was also expressed by concessionaires; one said that ‘it’s good for the high school to have a kiosk, because rent is paid, and its money that is used for infra- structure or whatever’ (Concessionaire 06). Outside vendors Overwhelmingly, both school principals and concession- aires referred to the limitation of not being able to influence food choices outside of schools, as students could purchase unhealthy foods from nearby informal street vendors, small food stores (pulperías) and restaurants before, after and sometimes even during schooltime. This limitation influ- enced their motivation and commitment to implement the Guidelines – if students were able to purchase and bring unhealthy foods to schools, the Guidelines’ purpose of restricting consumption of unhealthy foods at school was not met. Participants described this situation: ‘Sometimes they [students] will request permission to go to the pulpería, and all the little packages, theywill bring them in’ (Principal 07) ‘But if I am a student, and I like eating sweets and I cannot get them at the kiosk anymore, its better if I buy them outside because there is no restriction there [reflecting on how students think]’ (Principal 10) ‘I used to sell pizza, and then I stopped ( : : : ), but the kids, for example, get organized and order a pizza and soda, and all that’ (Concessionaire 08) ‘You see them [the students] sometimes, with a Coke in their hands, but they brought it in their backpacks’ (Concessionaire 12) Role of home More than half of the interviewed principals and concession- aires highlighted the role of parents as main responsible for promoting the adoption and practice of healthy eating habits in youth. When parents are unable or unwilling to establish these habits at home, schools are uncapable of instilling them on their own. Schools can only play a supporting role in the promotion of healthy eating by providing education and offering a healthy food environment to students. ‘It’s complicated and I understand the policy when Garnier [the Minister of Education at the time] was there, and the regulations, and the kids’ diet, and their health ( : : : ) but it has to go further, to the family, its more cultural, from home ( : : : )’ (Principal 12) ‘The Minister makes its rules with the school kiosks, but the battle itself is more so educational, the habits that come from home are essential ( : : : ) both adults have to speak the same language, parents and teach- ers, the institution.’ (Principal 04) ‘[The school] can try to educate kids in their studies, rules, and habits, but the kid has bad habits from home. They are thinking Coca Cola because at home they give them lunch with Coca Cola, dinner with Coca Cola ( : : : )’ (Concessionaire 06) ‘Teaching kids how to eat is not at elementary school or high school, we can help ( : : : ), but I feel that comes from home’ (Concessionaire 12) Difficulty in understanding technical Guidelines The Guidelines specify nutrient cut points for 100 g or ml of product (Table 1). Neither the principals nor the conces- sionaires had a basic understanding of the Guidelines’ cri- teria used to determine the food items or products restricted or allowed for sales in school food kiosks. Slightly over half (7 of 12) principals mentioned that carbonated beverages and deep-fried foods were non-permitted according to the Guidelines; other than this knowledge, which is cor- rect, understanding of products regulation status varied widely across the interviews. Only one of all interview- ees explained that the Guidelines stipulate cut points per product weight, which made it difficult for her to implement. ‘No one has given me a list of things I can sell ( : : : ) neither the Board, nor the Ministry ( : : : ) they have told me some of the products that can’t be sold, but not those that I can’ (Concessionaire 08) In addition, participants held several misconceptions of the Guidelines. A few mentioned that baked packaged chips, as opposed to fried, were allowed for sale. The Guidelines, however, stipulate limits on fat content for packaged foods, regardless of whether these are baked. Another misconception was that some small-sized choco- late candies were allowed for sale by the Guidelines. As the Guidelines stipulate that the first product ingredient must not be sugar, and because nutrient cut points are based on 100 g and not on package size, most chocolate candies are non-adherent, regardless of its size. 8 ML Jensen et al. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. 19 Aug 2021 at 12:53:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. https://www.cambridge.org/core Monitoring and accountability All of the schools reported having an active Health and Nutrition Committee that is formed at the beginning of every school year. Despite the existence of the committee, the activities that school principals described as the com- mittee’s responsibility pertained more so to ensure adequate functioning of the school cafeteria, as opposed to monitoring the school kiosk. Furthermore, there was a lack of clarity regarding who was responsible for monitor- ing the implementation of the Guidelines. In most schools, monitoring of food availability from the principal was sporadic and informal. For example, one principal said ‘what we do is every once in a while we will send someone to buy something’ (Principal 01), alluding to how they go about checking what is available at the school kiosk. Another principal expressed frustration with having to monitor the Guidelines, by explaining that they were enacted abruptly as opposed to a guided process: ‘They throw the regulation at us, and there you go, you figure out how you can set this in place’ (Principal 03). Other principals described their procedures: ‘The regulations are established, and its where we go into negotiations ( : : : ) they [concessionaire] tell us, “if I stick to this, it won’t work for me”, so we [school administration] try to have some flexibility’ (Principal 07) ‘Periodically, we make visits and observations. In fact, in these days a colleague is helping us with a questionnaire and he is applying it to students in each classroom ( : : : ). A small survey where we ask about the quality of the service, prices, vari- ety, it’s about 5 items about the service they receive’ (Principal 09) ‘For example, I try to go once a week, I’ll swing by, take a look, and interview students so they can tell me’ (Principal 04) ‘I don’t know right now how the kiosk is looking : : : the lady should adhere to the regulations : : : but you probably go up there [to the kiosk] and you might even be able to buy a coke’ (Principal 11) Kiosk concessionaires experiences seemed to reflect the informality and lack of consistency in the monitoring: ‘They [School Board] have never told us ‘look, don’t sell this, don’t sell that’ ( : : : ) all they did was talk to us about the deep-fried stuff of the regulations, wash- ing, hygiene stuff, freezing’ (Concessionaire 07) ‘I’ve reintroduced products because they don’t con- trol it ( : : : ) he [principal] walks by, takes a look, but that’s it’ (Concessionaire 08) Site visits by the Ministry of Health to monitor the imple- mentation of the Guidelines were mentioned in four out of the twelve schools. One concessionaire said that ‘they have visited several times [the Ministry]. They check the oil, whether we are wearing earrings, those kinds of things ( : : : )’ (Concessionaire 06), while adding that during a recent visit they also checkedwhich foods were being sold. Students’ purchasing capacity Some principals considered it was necessary to offer low- cost products to satisfy students’ hunger and provide satiety. These products, such as packaged chips, were deemed to be non-adherent to the Guidelines. Furthermore, principals and concessionaires considered that foods thatmet theGuidelines were in general more expensive and less filling. The high cost of prepared foods and products to meet the Guidelines caused concern to principals of schools in low-income areas, where students’ purchasing capacity was limited: ‘Products have to have amoderate price accessible to students, this is a rural area, lots of the kids are from farmers ( : : : ) and they don’t have great purchasing power ( : : : ) lots of them have scholarships and they come to school with very little money, so the person at the kiosk has to have products accessible for stu- dents’ (Principal 09) ‘What they [students] like most are the packages that are sold at 100 [colones], plantain, yucca and potato chips, because, you know, there are people that are very poor here, and they come with little money and that’s what they buy’ (Concessionaire 11) Adolescents food preferences A salient theme throughout the interviews was that adoles- cents prefer what principals and concessionaires consider unhealthier foods and beverages. Given their food prefer- ences, principals and concessionaires expressed that ado- lescents are not willing to purchase healthier products that have been offered to adhere to the Guidelines, such as fruits and fruit smoothies: ‘I feel that because they are young, they probably don’t pay attention to their health as much because they trust that they feel healthy, they feel strong’ (Principal 09) ‘If you make a kid choose between an apple and a Picaritas package, for sure they will go with the Picaritas’ (Principal 11) ‘Kids will sometimes tell us ‘oh, can you please buy this cookie, it’s so tasty’ so we try to get it, so that they can buy it’’ (Concessionaire 07) ‘We bring fruits and they all go bad, because it’s hard. I think there are 1400 students in the school, and per- haps 5 will come in a day to buy fruit. And most of them are teachers’ (Concessionaire 04). Regulatory food policy in Costa Rican schools 9 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. 19 Aug 2021 at 12:53:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. https://www.cambridge.org/core Discussion This study highlights the challenges for public high schools to implement a set of mandatory Guidelines that sought to restrict the sale of unhealthy foods and beverages in Costa Rican kiosks and the contextual factors that were influenc- ing this implementation from perspectives of implementing actors. Unhealthy products were still widely available in schools, and amongst the most prevalent challenges to implementation that emerged from our interviews, were a lack of understanding of the policy content, a lack ofmon- itoring and accountability, and competing values amongst actors which affected their views on the role that the school must have in offering a healthy food environment. Both principals and concessionaires had insufficient knowledge regarding the content of the Guidelines. The Guidelines provide cut points for nutrients of concern (fat, saturated fat, sugar and Na) that are given per 100 g or 100 ml of products. NFP labels in Costa Rica typically report nutrients per serving, however, making it difficult to determine quickly if a product would be considered pro- hibited for school sales. This is in contrast, for example, to Chile, in which legislation required products exceeding thresholds to carry a front-of-package warning label(26). With such labels, the process of determining whether a product can be sold is straightforward. Poor knowledge and understanding of a policy has been found to inhibit effective implementation in other settings as well(13), including Canada(17,27), Australia(28), South Korea(29) and Mexico(30). Monitoring and accountability for successful policy implementation are important(31). A study conducted in the USA found that having a strong policy requiring evalu- ation was associated with use of reporting, monitoring and evaluation activities(32). According to the Guidelines, it is the school principal’s responsibility to report irregularities or non-adherence to required duties of the concessionaire to the School Board, who is deemed responsible for the adequate functioning of the kiosk. The school principal can act on his own behalf or through the school’s Health andNutrition Committee(33). If there is a lack of understand- ing of the Guidelines to begin with, however, monitoring of its implementation at the school level becomes nearly impossible. Our key findings regarding the factors influencing implementation echo those summarised in a recent review(13) which included studies conducted in the USA, the UK, Canada and Australia, among other countries. This review highlighted the importance of good communi- cation strategies as well as social and financial support prior to food policy implementation. Furthermore, it recognised the importance of policy implementation research in low- and middle-income countries, which is limited. Various countries in Latin America have implemented similar policies restricting the sale of unhealthy foods in school(34,35) particularly in the past 10 years, including Mexico(36), Chile(26), Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru(37) and Uruguay(38). In Chile, the availability of products that exceeded recommended nutrient thresholds was reduced substantially after policy implementation(39). On the other hand, in Mexico, similar to our study, non-permitted energy-dense foods (per country’s regulation) in school food establishments were found during the two school years following the implementation of the Guidelines(40). The need of support for stakeholders responsible for policy implementation as well as the importance of measurable goals and objectives were some of the key lessons learned from the process in Mexico(30). Adolescents’ food preferences are important to consider in the context of school food policies. Indeed, a key barrier to nutrition promotion in secondary schools is the percep- tion by parents and teachers that adolescents have a strong preference for energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods(41), whichmight reinforce a cycle in which a profit-driven kiosk within the school will seek to offer foods that they believe teenagers are willing to buy. One study in the UK reported the emergence of ‘black markets’ in the context of a nutri- tion policy: students were found to be selling confection- ary, energy drinks and other foods in secondary schools(42). In our study, this only emerged during two interviews. Students purchasing items prohibited from sales in school kiosks, however, was a prevalent theme, which also speaks to the challenges of promoting healthy eating habits. In that sense, the role of the home in shaping adolescents’ food preferences is important, as it includes a variety of psychological, social and environmental factors that mediate the relationship between nutrition knowledge and diet quality in adolescents(43). One study found, that for example, home accessibility of energy-dense snacks was negatively associated with frequency of fruit consumption in adolescents, whereas home availability and accessibility of fruits and vegetables were positively associated with their consumption(44). During our interviews, both princi- pals and concessionaires expressed that it was important for parents to forge healthy eating habits at home, and they strongly believed that there was only so much that the school could do to promote good nutrition. In that sense, policies that restrict the sale of unhealthy foods are not a solution that will work in isolation. Effective food policies are implemented as part of a combination of mutually reinforcing actions(5,45), which in the longer term can help shift food environments and preferences. Healthy school food policies should be paired with policies targeting other elements of the food environment that also affect food pref- erences, such as the marketing of unhealthy foods, the retail setting, food labelling and food prices, among others. Since our interviews and site visits were conducted, a development has occurred in Costa Rica’s PANEA, the pro- gramme providing breakfast and lunch meals to students. Specifically, in 2017, the MPE and the School of Nutrition of the University of Costa Rica launched new Guidelines and menus to be implemented at the start of the 2018 10 ML Jensen et al. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. 19 Aug 2021 at 12:53:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. https://www.cambridge.org/core school year(46). The implementation of these is expected to occur in stages, with adoption by all ˜5000 schools nation- wide planned for 2022(47). The changes were prompted, among other factors, by the release of the National Weight and Height School Census(48) which raised aware- ness regarding the increased prevalence of overweight and obesity among Costa Rican children. The new Guidelines only apply to meals provided by schools (not food sold in kiosks). Future research should assess whether and how the quality of products available for kiosks changes in the context of this governmental initiative. Study limitations We were unable to capture perspectives of other policy actors involved in the implementation of the Guidelines, such as members of the schools’ health and nutrition com- mittees, members of the boards of education, and students. Furthermore, governmental staff could have provided additional insights regarding the process of monitoring and accountability of the policy. Because our main aim was to learn what was happening regarding implementa- tion in the schools and why, we prioritised speaking with principals and school kiosk concessionaires. Interviews and site visits were done 3 years after enactment of the Guidelines, providing assessment of implementation in the medium term; implementation of the policy might have been higher in the year after the Guidelines were enacted. In some schools, neither the principal nor the concession- aire had been at the school during implementation of the Guidelines in 2012, and therefore could not describe the process of change in the context of the Guidelines (if any). In addition, our study design captured only secon- dary public schools (i.e. high schools), and therefore we are unable to speak to the reality of elementary schools. It is possible that implementation was higher in the latter, given that younger students attend and there might be a belief that the rights of younger children should be pro- tected, including the right to healthy food. A final limitation was that our study examined only schools located in San José. We included both rural and urban schools, and the human development indices of the counties in which schools were located were classified as ‘high’ or ‘very high’, as are 97·5 % of counties nationwide(49). There might be, however, differences in how policy actors responded to the Guidelines across different contexts, in particular for schools located in coastal provinces (such as Puntarenas, Guanacaste and Limón), as well as indigenous commun- ities and counties located on the Northern border, which have socio-economic disadvantages compared to the rest of the country. Policy implications and future research The Costa Rican government took an important step with the enactment of the Guidelines in 2012, but achieving the short- and long-term intended effects requires that those interested in improving the health and well-being of children and adolescents be proactive in ensuring adequate implementation. To promote implementation, the Guidelines should be easier to understand and the cur- rent technical language should be translated into practical information. Amulti-institutional and interdisciplinary team could develop a plan for adequate adoption, implementa- tion and monitoring of the Guidelines. First, the assessment of the current food supply in Costa Rica could be done to identify foods and beverages that meet the Guidelines. Second, a communication strategy could be developed so that concessionaires can easily identify these products that meet the Guidelines, prepare foods that are in line with the Guidelines and liked by stu- dents, and implement strategies that can improve kiosk profitability. Third, the plan could describe how periodic monitoring of the implementation of Guidelines in schools will be done, including resources and entities responsible for such monitoring. Fourth, the plan could describe the mechanisms by which students could be involved in improving the implementation of the Guidelines, for exam- ple, by providing them with spaces to share their opinions and concerns regarding the foods they can access within the school. Once some of these steps are taken, future research could assess to what extent key actors in schools are aware of the Guidelines and have the necessary skills and resour- ces to enforce adherence to these. This information is nec- essary for primary and secondary schools from a large nationwide sample; therefore, relying on methods such as a telephone(27) or internet survey(50) could be helpful. Future research could also assess changes in dietary intake over time, including where food and beverages are pur- chased and consumed by children and adolescents. Conclusion Most foods and beverages offered in high schools did not meet the nutrition criteria required by the mandatory Guidelines. Policy implementation was hindered by an inadequate understanding of the policy content, a lack of monitoring and accountability, and competing values amongst policy actors. Strengthening the implementation of the Costa RicanGuidelines will require actions to address these constraints. Acknowledgements Acknowledgements:We thankDr Anne Chinnockwho pro- vided feedback at initial stages of this project. We also thank Natalia Flores Soto and Alison Morales Vásquez, research assistants who participated in transcription of interviews, and the school principals and kiosk concession- aires who participated in our study. Financial support: This Regulatory food policy in Costa Rican schools 11 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. 19 Aug 2021 at 12:53:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. https://www.cambridge.org/core project was funded by grant No 450-B4-377 from the Vice- Rectory of Research of the University of Costa Rica and by the Costa Rican Institute of Research and Education on Nutrition and Health. Conflict of interest: There are no con- flicts of interest. Authorship: M.L.J., W.G., E.A.F. and R.M. designed the study. M.L.J. collected the data. M.L.J. and W.G. analysed the interviews. C.B. processed and analysed data for the photographic inventory of foods and beverages. M.L.J.,W.G. andC.B. draftedmanuscript. All authors provided critical intellectual feedback for interpretation of study results, implications and final manuscript submitted. Ethics of human subject participation: This study was conducted according to the guidelines laid down in theDeclaration of Helsinki and all procedures involving human subjects/patients were approved by theEthics Committee of theUniversity of CostaRica.Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects. Supplementary material For supplementary material accompanying this paper visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980021003013 References 1. Corvalán C, Garmendia M, Jones-Smith J et al. (2017) Nutrition status of children in Latin America. Obes Rev 18, 7–18. 2. Lipsky LM, Nansel TR, Haynie DL et al. (2017) Diet quality of US adolescents during the transition to adulthood: changes and predictors. Am J Clin Nutr 105, 1424–1432. 3. Monge-Rojas R, Vargas-Quesada R, Chinnock A et al. (2020) Changes in dietary intake of major nutrients and food sources among Costa Rican adolescents in the last 20 years. J Nutr 150, 2405–2411. 4. World Health Organization (2015) Guideline: sugar intake for adults and children. https://www.who.int/publications/ i/item/9789241549028 (accessed March 2020). 5. Hawkes C, Smith TG, Jewell J et al. (2015) Smart food poli- cies for obesity prevention. Lancet 385, 2410–2421. 6. L’Abbe M, Schermel A, Minaker L et al. (2013) Monitoring foods and beverages provided and sold in public sector set- tings. Obes Rev 14, Suppl. 1, 96–107. 7. World Health Organization (2021) Nutrition Action in Schools: A Review of the Evidence Related to the Nutrition-Friendly Schools Initiative. https://www.who. int/publications/i/item/9789241516969 (accessed January 2021). 8. Chriqui JF, Pickel M & Story M (2014) Influence of school competitive food and beverage policies on obesity, con- sumption, and availability: a systematic review. JAMA Pediatr 168, 279–286. 9. Adamson A, Spence S, Reed L et al. (2013) School food stan- dards in the UK: implementation and evaluation. Public Health Nutr 16, 968–981. 10. Micha R, Karageorgou D, Bakogianni I et al. (2018) Effectiveness of school food environment policies on child- ren’s dietary behaviors: a systematic review and meta-analy- sis. PLoS One 13, e0194555. 11. Driessen CE, Cameron AJ, Thornton LE et al. (2014) Effect of changes to the school food environment on eating behav- iours and/or body weight in children: a systematic review. Obes Rev 15, 968–982. 12. McIsaac J-LD, Spencer R, Chiasson K et al. (2019) Factors influencing the implementation of nutrition policies in schools: a scoping review. Health Educ Behav 46, 224–250. 13. Ronto R, Rathi N, Worsley A et al. (2020) Enablers and bar- riers to implementation of and compliance with school- based healthy food and beverage policies: a systematic liter- ature review and meta-synthesis. Public Health Nutr 23, 2840–2855. 14. Alfaro Valera G & Sánchez Molina V (2014) The experience of building a public policy and its application: systematiza- tion of the process of elaboration of the regulation for the operation and administration of student kiosks in public schools of Costa Rica. https://ceccsica.info/sites/default/ files/docs/Sistem.%20sodas%20escolares%20CR._0.pdf (accessed February 2021). 15. Ministry of Public Education (2019) List of Educational Centers, Classified by Regional Direction and Circuit. Document No. 396–19. ISSN 1409–0465. San José, Costa Rica. https://www.mep.go.cr/calendario/sites/default/files/ calendario-escolar/calendario_escolar.pdf (accessed September 2020). 16. FODESAF (2016) National School Nutrition and Feeding Program. https://fodesaf.go.cr/prog_soc_selectivos/ programacion_anual/fichas_cronogramas/2016/fichas/Ficha% 20descriptiva%20MEP-PANEA%20Comedores%20Escolares% 202016.pdf (accessed September 2020). 17. Masse LC, Naiman D & Naylor PJ (2013) From policy to prac- tice: implementation of physical activity and food policies in schools. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 10, 71. 18. Lucarelli J, Alaimo K, Mang E et al. (2014) Facilitators to pro- moting health in schools: is school health climate the key?. J School Health 84, 133–140. 19. Jilcott S, Ammerman AS, Sommers J et al. (2007) Applying the RE-AIM framework to assess the public health impact of policy change. Ann Behav Med 34, 105–114. 20. Holtrop JS, Rabin BA & Glasgow RE (2018) Qualitative approaches to use of the RE-AIM framework: rationale and methods. BMC Health Serv Res 18, 177. 21. Clark TW (2002) The Policy Process: A Practical Guide for Natural Resource Professionals. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 22. Acuña Castillo L, Astorga Madrigal D, Montoya Sánchez E et al. (2012)Diagnóstico de las Sodas Escolares y la Perspectiva de Una Soda Escolar Saludable Desde la Comunidad, La Escuela y la Familia, En Las Escuelas Fernando Terán Valls y Ricardo André Strauch del Distrito de Concepción y la Escuela Unidad Pedagógica del Distrito de San Diego, en el Cantón de la Unión, Cartago. Memoria de Seminario de Graduación Sometida a la Consideración del Tribunal Examinador de la Escuela de Nutrición Para Optar al Grado de Licenciatura. Universidad de Costa Rica (accessed August 2015). 23. Arias Barquero R, Chaves Quesada V, Moreno Camacho K et al. (2012) Diagnóstico de las Sodas Escolares y Su Perspectiva Desde la Comunidad, la Escuela y la Familia en las Escuelas Central de Tres Ríos, Villas de Ayarco Y San Vicente, del Cantón de la Unión, Cartago. Memoria de Seminario de Graduación Sometida a la Consideración del Tribunal Examinador de la Escuela de Nutrición Para Optar al Grado de Licenciatura. Universidad de Costa Rica (accessed August 2015). 24. Strauss A & Corbin J (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. 25. Glasgow RE, Vogt TM & Boles SM (1999) Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health 89, 1322–1327. 26. Corvalán C, Reyes M, Garmendia ML et al. (2018) Structural responses to the obesity and non-communicable diseases 12 ML Jensen et al. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. 19 Aug 2021 at 12:53:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980021003013 https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241549028 https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241549028 https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241516969 https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241516969 https://ceccsica.info/sites/default/files/docs/Sistem.%20sodas%20escolares%20CR._0.pdf https://ceccsica.info/sites/default/files/docs/Sistem.%20sodas%20escolares%20CR._0.pdf https://www.mep.go.cr/calendario/sites/default/files/calendario-escolar/calendario_escolar.pdf https://www.mep.go.cr/calendario/sites/default/files/calendario-escolar/calendario_escolar.pdf https://fodesaf.go.cr/prog_soc_selectivos/programacion_anual/fichas_cronogramas/2016/fichas/Ficha%20descriptiva%20MEP-PANEA%20Comedores%20Escolares%202016.pdf https://fodesaf.go.cr/prog_soc_selectivos/programacion_anual/fichas_cronogramas/2016/fichas/Ficha%20descriptiva%20MEP-PANEA%20Comedores%20Escolares%202016.pdf https://fodesaf.go.cr/prog_soc_selectivos/programacion_anual/fichas_cronogramas/2016/fichas/Ficha%20descriptiva%20MEP-PANEA%20Comedores%20Escolares%202016.pdf https://fodesaf.go.cr/prog_soc_selectivos/programacion_anual/fichas_cronogramas/2016/fichas/Ficha%20descriptiva%20MEP-PANEA%20Comedores%20Escolares%202016.pdf https://www.cambridge.org/core epidemic: update on the Chilean law of food labelling and advertising. Obes Rev 20, 367–374. 27. Downs SM, Farmer A, Quintanilha M et al. (2012) From paper to practice: barriers to adopting nutrition guidelines in schools. J Nutr Educ Behav 44, 114–122. 28. Ardzejewska K, Tadros R & Baxter D (2013) A descriptive study on the barriers and facilitators to implementation of the NSW (Australia) healthy school canteen strategy. Health Educ J 72, 136–145. 29. Choi SK, Frongillo EA, Blake CE et al. (2019) Why are restricted food items still sold after the implementation of the school store policy? The case of South Korea. Food Policy 83, 161–169. 30. Théodore FL, Moreno-Saracho JE, Bonvecchio A et al. (2018) Lessons learned and insights from the implementation of a food and physical activity policy to prevent obesity in Mexican schools: an analysis of nationally representative sur- vey results. PLoS One 13, e0198585. 31. Swinburn B, Kraak V, Rutter H et al. (2015) Strengthening of accountability systems to create healthy food environments and reduce global obesity. Lancet 385, 2534–2545. 32. Turner L, Asada Y, Leider J et al. (2021) Canmonitoringmake it happen? An assessment of how reporting, monitoring, and evaluation can support local wellness policy implementation in US schools. Nutrients 13, 1357. 33. Ministry of Public Education & Ministry of Health of Costa Rica (2012) Reglamento para el Funcionamiento y Administración del Servicio de Soda en los Centros Educativos Públicos (Decreto Nº36910). http://www. pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_texto_ completo.aspx?param1=NRTC&nValor1=1&nValor2=71782& nValor3=93563&strTipM=TC (accessed January 2019). 34. Fraser B (2013) Latin American countries crack down on junk food. Lancet 382, 385–386. 35. World Cancer Research Fund International (2020) NOURISHING database: offer healthy food and set standards in public institutions and other specific settings. https:// www.wcrf.org/sites/default/files/2_Offer_healthy_food.pdf (accessed March 2020). 36. Monterrosa EC, Campirano F, Tolentino Mayo L et al. (2015) Stakeholder perspectives on national policy for regulating the school food environment in Mexico. Health Policy Plann 30, 28–38. 37. Ministry of Health of Perú (2012) Directiva Sanitaria No. 063/MINSA/DGPS.V.01 para la Promoción de Quioscos y Comedores Escolares Saludables en las Instituciones Educativas. http://repositorio.minsa.gob.pe:8080/jspui/ handle/MINSA/77214 (accessed March 2020). 38. Oficial Information Center of Uruguay (2014) Decreto N°60/ 014. Reglamentación a la Ley 19.140 relativo a la protección de la salud de la población infantil y adolescente a través de la promoción de hábitos alimenticios saludables. https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/decretos/60-2014 (accessed March 2020). 39. Massri C, Sutherland S, Kallestal C et al. (2019) Impact of the food-labeling and advertising law banning competitive food and beverages in Chilean public schools, 2014–2016. Am J Public Health 109, 1249–1254. 40. Jimenez-Aguilar A, Morales-Ruan MDC, Lopez-Olmedo N et al. (2017) The fight against overweight and obesity in school children: public policy in Mexico. J Public Health Policy 38, 407–428. 41. Rathi N, Riddell L & Worsley A (2018) Barriers to nutrition promotion in private secondary schools in Kolkata, India: perspectives of parents and teachers. Int J Environ Res Public Health 15, 1139. 42. Fletcher A, Jamal F, Fitzgerald-Yau N et al. (2014) ‘We’ve got some underground business selling junk food’: qualitative evidence of the unintended effects of English school food policies. Sociology 48, 17. 43. Tabbakh T & Freeland-Graves JH (2016) The home environ- ment: a mediator of nutrition knowledge and diet quality in adolescents. Appetite 105, 46–52. 44. Pearson N, Griffiths P, Biddle SJH et al. (2017) Individual, behavioural and home environmental factors associated with eating behaviours in young adolescents. Appetite 112, 35–43. 45. Popkin BM, Barquera S, Corvalan C et al. (2021) Towards unified and impactful policies to reduce ultra-processed food consumption and promote healthier eating. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 9, 462–470. 46. University of Costa Rica (2017) More water, vegetables, and fruits: New menues will improve the nutrition of 800,000 students. https://www.ucr.ac.cr/noticias/2017/12/ 05/mas-agua-verduras-y-frutas-nuevos-menus-mejoraran- la-alimentacion-de-800-000-estudiantes.html (accessed March 2020). 47. Castro K (2020) Only one thousand school canteens have implemented new MEP menu. https://www.crhoy.com/ nacionales/solo-mil-comedores-escolares-han-implementado- nuevo-menu-del-mep/ (accessed March 2020). 48. Ministry of Health & Ministry of Public Education of Costa Rica (2016) Height/Weight School Census: Executive Summary. https://www.mep.go.cr/sites/default/files/page/ adjuntos/informe-ejecutivo-censo-escolar-peso-cortofinal. pdf (accessed July 2017). 49. United Nations Development Programme & School of Statistics of the University of Costa Rica (2020) Human Development Atlas of Costa Rica. https://www.cr.undp. org/content/costarica/es/home/atlas-de-desarrollo-humano- cantonal.html (accessed March 2021). 50. McIsaac J-LD, Kontak JC &Kirk SF (2018)Moving frompolicy to practice: a report of school nutrition policy adherence in Nova Scotia. Can J Diet Pract Res 79, 196–199. Regulatory food policy in Costa Rican schools 13 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. 19 Aug 2021 at 12:53:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. http://www.pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_texto_completo.aspx?param1=NRTC&nValor1=1&nValor2=71782&nValor3=93563&strTipM=TC http://www.pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_texto_completo.aspx?param1=NRTC&nValor1=1&nValor2=71782&nValor3=93563&strTipM=TC http://www.pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_texto_completo.aspx?param1=NRTC&nValor1=1&nValor2=71782&nValor3=93563&strTipM=TC http://www.pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_texto_completo.aspx?param1=NRTC&nValor1=1&nValor2=71782&nValor3=93563&strTipM=TC http://www.pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_texto_completo.aspx?param1=NRTC&nValor1=1&nValor2=71782&nValor3=93563&strTipM=TC http://www.pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_texto_completo.aspx?param1=NRTC&nValor1=1&nValor2=71782&nValor3=93563&strTipM=TC http://www.pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_texto_completo.aspx?param1=NRTC&nValor1=1&nValor2=71782&nValor3=93563&strTipM=TC http://www.pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_texto_completo.aspx?param1=NRTC&nValor1=1&nValor2=71782&nValor3=93563&strTipM=TC http://www.pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_texto_completo.aspx?param1=NRTC&nValor1=1&nValor2=71782&nValor3=93563&strTipM=TC https://www.wcrf.org/sites/default/files/2_Offer_healthy_food.pdf https://www.wcrf.org/sites/default/files/2_Offer_healthy_food.pdf http://repositorio.minsa.gob.pe:8080/jspui/handle/MINSA/77214 http://repositorio.minsa.gob.pe:8080/jspui/handle/MINSA/77214 https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/decretos/60-2014 https://www.ucr.ac.cr/noticias/2017/12/05/mas-agua-verduras-y-frutas-nuevos-menus-mejoraran-la-alimentacion-de-800-000-estudiantes.html https://www.ucr.ac.cr/noticias/2017/12/05/mas-agua-verduras-y-frutas-nuevos-menus-mejoraran-la-alimentacion-de-800-000-estudiantes.html https://www.ucr.ac.cr/noticias/2017/12/05/mas-agua-verduras-y-frutas-nuevos-menus-mejoraran-la-alimentacion-de-800-000-estudiantes.html https://www.crhoy.com/nacionales/solo-mil-comedores-escolares-han-implementado-nuevo-menu-del-mep/ https://www.crhoy.com/nacionales/solo-mil-comedores-escolares-han-implementado-nuevo-menu-del-mep/ https://www.crhoy.com/nacionales/solo-mil-comedores-escolares-han-implementado-nuevo-menu-del-mep/ https://www.mep.go.cr/sites/default/files/page/adjuntos/informe-ejecutivo-censo-escolar-peso-cortofinal.pdf https://www.mep.go.cr/sites/default/files/page/adjuntos/informe-ejecutivo-censo-escolar-peso-cortofinal.pdf https://www.mep.go.cr/sites/default/files/page/adjuntos/informe-ejecutivo-censo-escolar-peso-cortofinal.pdf https://www.cr.undp.org/content/costarica/es/home/atlas-de-desarrollo-humano-cantonal.html https://www.cr.undp.org/content/costarica/es/home/atlas-de-desarrollo-humano-cantonal.html https://www.cr.undp.org/content/costarica/es/home/atlas-de-desarrollo-humano-cantonal.html https://www.cambridge.org/core Implementation of a regulatory food policy to reduce availability of energy-dense foods in Costa Rican high schools Methods Study setting Recruitment and study sample Instrument development Data collection Data analysis Results What were school food kiosks selling? Perspectives of policy actors Changes in response to the Guidelines Kiosk profitability Outside vendors Role of home Difficulty in understanding technical Guidelines Monitoring and accountability Students' purchasing capacity Adolescents food preferences Discussion Study limitations Policy implications and future research Conclusion Acknowledgements Supplementary material References