Positive Associations Between Nutrition Policy and Food Environment Scores on Military Installations

Background/Objectives: Due to the rise in chronic disease in the United States, several policies, guidelines, and programs have focused on promoting healthy eating. This includes those aimed at service members, who may struggle to find nutritious food options on military bases. The Military Nutrition Environment Assessment Tool (mNEAT) assesses the access, availability, and promotion of nutritious foods and beverages on military bases. Military services vary in their policies related to the food environment, including the use of mNEAT, on their installations. The aim of this article is to examine the difference in mNEAT scores for those military services with a comprehensive mNEAT policy compared to those with a partial policy. Methods: Installations with mNEAT scores from October 2021 to September 2024 were separated into two groups: full-policy group (Air Force, Space Force, nf = 76) and partial-policy group (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, np = 69). Food venue types assessed include: commissary (nf = 67, np = 44); fast-food (nf = 63, np = 48); vending (nf = 42, np = 18); express stores (nf = 65, np = 50); food truck (nf = 42, np = 24); dining facility/galley (nf = 51, np = 40); Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) food service venues (nf = 56, np = 38). Installation-level venue types assessed include community (nf = 56, np = 24) and worksite (nf = 49, np = 20). Installations were separated into venue-type variety groups according to how many different venue types they assessed: low (1–4 venue types, n = 47), moderate (5–7 venue types, n = 48), and high (8–9 venue types, n = 50). Results: The full-policy group had higher total installation mNEAT scores on average than the partial-policy group (54.6% vs 50.4%, p = 0.034), but results were no longer significant when venue type assessment variety was added as a covariate (p = 0.074). In addition, the full-policy group had higher scores (p ≤ 0.05) for the following venue types: dining facility/galley, MWR, fast-food, express, and community. In the moderate (p = 0.012) and high (p = 0.022) venue-type variety groups, the full-policy group had significantly higher mNEAT scores, but not for the low venue-type variety group (p = 0.547). Conclusions: Higher mNEAT scores for full-policy installations may indicate a more supportive food environment than those in the partial-policy group, when ≥5 food venue types were assessed. Military services without a comprehensive mNEAT policy can consider modifying or implementing one to support easier access and availability of nutritious options. This public health strategy can support service members’ health and performance and can be applied to similar settings, such as universities and worksites.