Acquisition of family farm foods in municipalities of <i>São Paulo</i> state: The influence of the management of the School Feeding Program and municipal characteristics

SOUZA, Vanessa Manfre Garcia de; VILLAR, Betzabeth Slater

doi:10.1590/1678-9865201932e180083

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Original • Rev Nutr 32 • 2019 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-9865201932e180083 copy

Acquisition of family farm foods in municipalities of São Paulo state: The influence of the management of the School Feeding Program and municipal characteristics

Aquisição da agricultura familiar em municípios do estado de São Paulo: a influência da gestão do Programa de Alimentação Escolar e características municipais

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Objective

To describe and analyze the implementation aspects of the purchase of food from family farms, according to the management of the School Feeding Program and characteristics of municipalities in the state of São Paulo.

Methods

A cross-sectional descriptive-analytical study, including 25 municipalities from São Paulo that purchased from family farms for school feeding, where 105 schools were drawn, in 2013, to verify: knowledge of the Law No.11,947/2009, disclosure of the purchasing process, guidance on the management of food, kitchen improvements, variety of food purchased and the use ≤30% of the Program’s resources with family farming. Absolute and relative frequencies were analyzed, and Chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test were performed (p<0.05).

Results

The knowledge of Law No.11,947/2009 predominated in centralized management (p=0.010) and the disclosure of the purchasing process in school/mixed management (p=0.010); all municipalities of school/mixed management used ?30% of resources (p=0.015). The disclosure of the purchasing process was more frequent in municipalities with fewer students (p=0.038) and lower Gross Domestic Product (p=0.020); guidance on food management was more frequent in smaller municipalities (p=0.011), with fewer public schools (p=0.040) and lower Gross Domestic Product (p=0.003); the variety of foods was more frequent in smaller municipalities (p=0.027), with fewer students (p=0.025), smaller area (p=0.025) and medium Human Development Index (p=0.001).

Conclusion

The management of the School Feeding Program and municipal factors can influence the implementation of the purchase of food from family farms.

Keywords
Food and Nutrition Security; Food supply; Local Government; Nutrition Programs and Policies

Data from the municipality and source	Variable	Category
Total population (No. of inhabitants) (IBGE, 2010)	Size of municipality	Small: up to 100,000
Total population (No. of inhabitants) (IBGE, 2010)	Size of municipality	Medium: 100,001 to 500,000
Number of public schools (INEP, 2012)	Number of public schools	≤10 (≤median)
Number of public schools (INEP, 2012)	Number of public schools	>10 (>median)
Number of students in state and municipal schools (INEP, 2012)	Number of students	≤1,798 (≤median)
	Number of students	>1,798 (>median)
Gross Domestic Product per capita (in reais) (IBGE, 2012)	GDP	≤17,275.06 (≤median)
Gross Domestic Product per capita (in reais) (IBGE, 2012)	GDP	>17,275.06 (>median)
Area (km²) of the municipality (IBGE, 2010)	Area	<315.27 (≤median)
Area (km²) of the municipality (IBGE, 2010)	Area	>315.27 (>median)
Municipal Human Development Index (IPEA, 2010)	MHDI	Medium
Municipal Human Development Index (IPEA, 2010)	MHDI	High
Basic Education Development Index – 4^th/5^th grade, municipal school (INEP, 2013)	BEDI	Reached goal
	BEDI	Did not reach goal

Variable	Municipality
Variable	(n=25)	%
Size of municipality ^a a Demographic Census [19]
Small	22	88.0
Medium	3	12.0
MHDI ^b b MHDI: Municipal Human Development Index; medium (0.600–0.699) and high (0.700–0.799) [20];
Medium	3	12.0
High	22	88.0
BEDI ^c c BEDI: Basic Education Development Index 4th/5th grade municipal school; goals are individual for each municipality and in agreement with the federal government [21]; ^* * n = 24;
Reached goal	13	54.0
Did not reach goal	11	46.0
GDP per capita ^d d GDP: Gross Domestic Product of municipalities per capita (in reais) [19]; ^ The category values represent the mean of the variable.
≤21,000	16	64.0
>21,000	9	36.0
Management type of PNAE
Centralized	20	80.0
School or Mixed	5	20.0
	Median	Min – Max
Number of public schools^e e Number of Basic Education Schools [21];	10	2 – 181
Number of students^f f Number of enrollments in the regular and adult education of state and municipal schools [21].	1,798	441 – 64,888
Territorial area (km²)^a a Demographic Census [19]	315.27	128.18 – 1,062.70

Variable	Management type of PNAE				p ^* * p-value Pearson’s chi-square test.
	Centralized (n=83)		School or Mixed (n=22)
	n	%	n	%
School leader knows the law
Yes	70	84.3	13	59.1	0.010
No	13	15.7	9	40.9
Disclosure of the purchasing process ^a a Centralized management n=74; school or mixed management n=21;
Yes	23	31.1	13	61.9	0.010
No	51	68.9	8	38.1
Guidance on food management ^b b Centralized management n=81;
Yes	29	35.8	8	36.4	0.961
No	52	64.2	14	63.6
Kitchen improvement ^c c Centralized management n=78 and school or mixed management n=21;
Yes	9	11.5	3	14.3	0.732
No	69	88.5	18	85.7
Greater variety of food from family farming ^d d Centralized management n=73 and school or mixed management n=20.
Yes	16	21.9	4	20.0	0.853
No	57	78.1	16	80.0

Variable of municipalities	Disclosure of the purchasing process (n=95)				p ^ p-value Pearson’s chi-square test;	Guidance on food management (n=103)				p ^ p-value Pearson’s chi-square test;
	Yes		No			Yes		No
	n	%	n	%		n	%	n	%
Size of municipality ^a a Demographic Census [19];
Small	32	39.0	50	61.0	0.569	36	40.9	52	59.1	0.011
Medium	4	30.8	9	69.2		1	06.7	14	93.3
Number of public schools ^b b Number of Basic Education Schools [21]; ^* * The category values represent the median of the variable;
≤10	18	46.2	21	53.8	0.166	20	47.6	22	52.4	0.040
>10	18	32.1	38	67.9		17	27.9	44	72.1
Number of students ^a c Number of enrollments in the regular and adult education of state and municipal schools [21]; ^* * The category values represent the median of the variable;
≤1,798	20	50.0	20	50.0	0.038	17	40.5	25	59.5	0.424
>1,798	16	29.1	39	70.9		20	32.3	41	67.2
GDP per capita (in reais)^d d GDP: Gross Domestic Product of municipalities per capita (in reais) [19]; ^* * The category values represent the median of the variable;
≤17,275.06	21	51.2	20	48.8	0.022	23	52.3	21	47.7	0.003
>17,275.06	15	27.8	39	72.2		14	23.7	45	76.3
Territorial area (km)² ^a a Demographic Census [19]; ^* * The category values represent the median of the variable;
≤315.27	16	41.0	23	59.0	0.610	15	34.9	28	65.1	0.852
>315.27	20	35.7	36	64.3		22	36.7	38	63.3
MHDI ^e e MHDI: Municipal Human Development Index; medium (0.600–0.699) and high (0.700–0.799) [20];
Medium	5	38.5	8	61.5	0.964	4	40.8	9	69.2	0.681
High	31	37.8	51	62.2		33	36.7	57	63.3
BEDI ^f f BEDI: Basic Education Development Index 4th/5th grade municipal school; goals are individual for each municipality and in agreement with the federal government [21]. ^* ***** n= 93.
Reached goal	16	31.4	35	68.6	0.109	24	44.4	30	55.6	0.067
Did not reach goal	20	47.6	22	52.4		12	26.7	33	73.3

Variables of municipalities	Kitchen improvement (n=99)						Greater variety of food from family farming (n=93)
	Yes		No		p ^ p-value Pearson’s chi-square test;		Yes			No		p ^ p-value Pearson’s chi-square test;
	n	%	n	%	p ^ p-value Pearson’s chi-square test;		n	%		n	%	p ^ p-value Pearson’s chi-square test;
Size of municipality ^a a Demographic Census [19];
Small	12	14.3	72	085.7	0.118		20	25.6		58	074.4	0.027
Medium	0	-	15	100.0		0	-		15	100.0
Number of public schools ^b b Number of Basic Education Schools [21]; ^* * The category values represent the median of the variable;
≤10	8	19.5	33	080.5	0.058		9	23.7		29	076.3	0.671
>10	4	06.9	54	093.1		11	20.0		44	080.0
Number of students ^c c Number of enrollments in the regular and adult education of state and municipal schools [21]; ^* * The category values represent the median of the variable;
≤1,798	8	19.1	34	080.9	0.071		13	32.5		27	067.5	0.025
>1,798	4	07.0	53	93		7	13.2		46	086.8
GDP per capita (in reais)^d d GDP: Gross Domestic Product of municipalities per capita (in reais) [19]; ^* * The category values represent the median of the variable;
≤17,275.06	8	18.6	35	081.4	0.083		11	28.2		28	071.8	0.181
>17,275.06	4	07.1	52	092.9		9	16.7		45	083.3
Territorial area (km²)a^* * The category values represent the median of the variable;
≤315.27	6	14.6	35	085.4	0.523		13	32.5		27	067.5	0.025
>315.27	6	10.3	52	089.7		7	13.2		46	086.8
MHDI^e e MHDI: Municipal Human Development Index; medium (0.600–0.699) and high (0.700–0.799) [20];
Medium	1	07.7	12	092.3	0.604		7	58.3		5	041.7	0.001
High	11	12.8	75	087.2		13	16.1		68	083.9
BEDI ^f f BEDI: Basic Education Development Index 4th/5th grade municipal school; goals are individual for each municipality and in agreement with the federal government [21]. ^* ***** n= 93.
Reached goal	7	08.9	44	091.1	0.458		9	18.7		39	081.3	0.404
Did not reach goal	4	13.7	41	086.3			11	26.2		31	073.8

Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Campinas Núcleo de Editoração SBI - Campus II , Av. John Boyd Dunlop, s/n. - Prédio de Odontologia, 13059-900 Campinas - SP Brasil, Tel./Fax: +55 19 3343-6875 - Campinas - SP - Brazil
E-mail: sbi.submissionrn@puc-campinas.edu.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Correspondence to: VMG SOUZA. E-mail: <vanessa.manfregs@gmail.com>