Are school takeaway bans just a policy illusion? Students say yes

While local councils restrict new takeaways near schools, students are still surrounded by unhealthy food options—from corner shops to doorstep deliveries. Can policies keep up with reality?

Study: “It does help but there’s a limit…”: Young people’s perspectives on policies to manage hot food takeaways opening near schools. Image Credit: pam21 / Shutterstock

In a recent study published in the journal Social Science & Medicine, researchers investigated young people’s knowledge and opinions towards ‘operating management zones,’ regions of exclusion preventing takeaway outlets from functioning close to schools and other educational institutions across England. They conducted semi-structured ‘go-along’ interviews with 46 young people (ages 11-18) attending secondary schools in Islington and Redbridge, two London boroughs chosen for their diverse socioeconomic backgrounds and high density of takeaway outlets, and used framework analysis to elucidate the data.

Results revealed that while young people generally favored the deployment of these management zones, most were unaware of these policies before their interviews. Young people observed that while these management zones prevented new takeaways from establishing themselves, they failed to remove existing establishments or address the role of convenience stores, which many students relied on for purchasing unhealthy food and drinks before and after school.

Participants also highlighted that these policies did not account for the growing use of food delivery apps, which allowed students to bypass takeaway restrictions by ordering food directly to their homes or even to school gates.

These findings highlight gaps in ongoing management zone policies and suggest that interventions should expand beyond takeaways to include broader food environment changes, such as improving school food options and regulating unhealthy food sales in convenience stores.

Background

Accessibility plays a significant role in human dietary choices – an environment promoting easy and cheap access to unhealthy foods is likely to result in unhealthy diets (World Health Organization [WHO], 2016). Therefore, a growing trend in public health strategy policymakers is the utilization of ‘environmental interventions’ – limiting the propagation of establishments (‘takeaways’) that serve unhealthy ‘fast foods’ to curb today’s alarming increase in incidences of obesity and its comorbidities.

Schools and other educational institutions are prime targets for these public health interventions. Adolescents are estimated to spend ~40% of their lives in and around their schools, procuring a substantial portion of their daily foods from takeaways and convenience stores within walking distance. Research has revealed that most of these foods are energy-dense and nutrient-poor, contributing to dietary inadequacies amongst school-going populations worldwide.

“One study of UK secondary school students (aged 11-14 years) found that more than half purchased fast food or takeaway food at least twice a week, and 1 in 10 every day.”

To address these suboptimal trends and their outcomes on young people’s health, several English Local Authorities (LAs; n = 163+) have developed and implemented ‘takeaway planning policies,’ most of which comprise the enforcement of ‘takeaway exclusions zones’ that limit or deny the establishment of new fast-food outlets in the vicinities (400m to 800m) of schools and educational institutions. Unfortunately, most of these policies have been devised without input from stakeholders (young people) whose opinions and perceptions towards these policies remain largely unknown.

About the study

The present study aims to fill these knowledge gaps and potentially identify improvements in present takeaway planning policies by elucidating young peoples’ observations, perceptions, and opinions on their relevance and benefits. The target sample population was students between 11 and 18 years old attending secondary schooling in London’s Redbridge and Boroughs of Islington, where takeaway management zones had already been implemented (400m in Redbridge, 200m in Islington). These boroughs were selected to ensure perspectives from students with varied socioeconomic conditions and different levels of takeaway density.

“In 2013 and 2018, respectively, Islington and Redbridge councils introduced policies to manage the proliferation and concentration of takeaway outlets. Islington’s management zone policy specifies that planning permission for new takeaway outlets within a 200m radius of primary and secondary schools should be resisted. Redbridge operates management zones with a 400m radius of primary and secondary schools.”

Study data was acquired from four schools (two from each LA), each providing a minimum of nine student volunteers. Students were screened to ensure diversity in age, gender, and socioeconomic status. Data was obtained via ‘go-along’ semi-structured interviews designed to improve data collection by reducing power imbalances between students and researchers by making students think of themselves as expert guides.

Before the interview, students were briefed about the study and provided with background information on LA policies in their neighborhoods. Researchers also gathered data on students’ food purchasing habits to understand their interaction with the local food environment.

The NVivo 12 software was used to code and analyze participant audio recordings, following which framework analysis was employed to flexibly and comparatively elucidate trends in acquired data.

Study findings

Forty-six participants passed the preliminary screening and were included in the study. Interviews lasted a median of 42 minutes (range 30 min). Framework analysis revealed several key insights.

Firstly, most participants were unaware that management zones were in operation, with paraphrases of “I don’t think I would notice” highlighting their poor awareness. Most participants shared fond and enduring relationships with shop workers and considered established eateries fundamental features of their school culture and hubs of student social interaction.

Notably, while most participants endorsed the need for healthier food options in their environment, most felt that current LA management zones would make little to no difference in achieving this goal. These perceptions stemmed from the fact that LA policies curb the establishment of novel takeaways but do not impact pre-existing ones.

Moreover, participants noted that convenience stores played a significantly more prominent role in their day-to-day food purchases than takeaways, as they were more accessible, offered cheaper snack options, and allowed discreet consumption within school settings.

Participants also highlighted that most students procured chips, soft drinks, and confectionaries before and after school hours and not during lunch breaks, as assumed by policymakers.

Furthermore, the increasing use of food delivery apps and reports of students successfully ordering fast food deliveries to nearby school locations despite existing restrictions further undermine the intended impact of management zones. Some students noted that even when takeaways were limited in their immediate school vicinity, they could still access fast food through delivery services.

Conclusions

The study, titled “It does help, but there’s a limit…” Young people’s perspectives on policies to manage hot food takeaways opening near schools” highlights that young people in England have low awareness of LA takeaway management zones in their neighborhoods.

While participants generally agreed that healthier food options are the need of the hour, they believe that gaps in LA policies and increasing hot/fast-food accessibility via convenience stores and food delivery apps undermine the effectiveness of these policies.

Participants indicated that takeaway restrictions alone were insufficient to change dietary behaviors, as unhealthy food remained widely accessible through other sources. Some students suggested that enhancing the affordability and appeal of school meals, introducing policies to regulate convenience store snack sales, and restricting food delivery access to school premises could strengthen the impact of management zones.

While the study does not prescribe specific policy solutions, it underscores the importance of considering young people’s lived experiences when designing interventions aimed at improving dietary behaviors. Addressing these factors could help ensure that young people’s dietary behaviors align better with public health goals.