Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:11:43.282Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Food store access and household fruit and vegetable use among participants in the US Food Stamp Program

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2007

Donald Rose  and
Rickelle Richards
Donald Rose*
Affiliation:
Department of Community Health Sciences, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, 1440 Canal Street, Suite #2301, New Orleans, LA 70112, USA
Rickelle Richards
Affiliation:
Department of Community Health Sciences, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, 1440 Canal Street, Suite #2301, New Orleans, LA 70112, USA
*
*Corresponding author: Email [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective:

Recent research on access to food among low-income populations in industrialised countries has begun to focus on neighbourhood food availability as a key determinant of dietary behaviour. This study examined the relationship between various measures of food store access and household fruit and vegetable use among participants in the Food Stamp Program, America's largest domestic food assistance programme.

Design:

A secondary data analysis was conducted using the 1996–97 National Food Stamp Program Survey. The survey employed a 1-week food inventory method, including two at-home interviews, to determine household food use. Separate linear regression models were developed to analyse fruit and vegetable use. Independent variables included distance to store, travel time to store, ownership of a car and difficulty of supermarket access. All models controlled for a full set of socio-economic variables.

Subjects:

A nationally representative sample of participants (n = 963) in the Food Stamp Program.

Results:

After controlling for confounding variables, easy access to supermarket shopping was associated with increased household use of fruits (84 grams per adult equivalent per day; 95% confidence interval 5, 162). Distance from home to food store was inversely associated with fruit use by households. Similar patterns were seen with vegetable use, though associations were not significant.

Conclusions:

Environmental factors are importantly related to dietary choice in a nationally representative sample of low-income households, reinforcing the importance of including such factors in interventions that seek to effect dietary improvements.

Keywords

Fruit and vegetable consumptionFood environmentSupermarket accessHousehold surveyLow-income populationFood Stamp Program
Type
Research Article
Information
Public Health Nutrition , Volume 7 , Issue 8 , December 2004 , pp. 1081 - 1088
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2004

References

1Ness, AR, Powles, JW. Fruit and vegetables and cardiovascular disease: a review. International Journal of Epidemiology 1997; 26: 1–13.Google Scholar
2Steinmetz, KA, Potter, JD. Vegetables, fruit, and cancerprevention: a review. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1996; 96: 1027–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Van Duyn, MA, Pivonka, E. Overview of the health benefits of fruit and vegetable consumption for the dietetics professional: selected literature. Journal of the AmericanDietetic Association 2000; 100: 1511–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)/USDepartment of Agriculture (USDA). Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Washington, DC: DHHS and USDA, 1980.Google Scholar
5US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Healthy People 2010. Washington, DC: DHHS, 2000.Google Scholar
6Krebs-Smith, SM, Kantor, LS. Choose a variety of fruits and vegetables daily: understanding the complexities. Journal of Nutrition 2001; 131: 487S–501S.Google Scholar
7Department US of Health, Education, and Welfare (DHEW), Centers for Disease Control. Ten-State Nutrition Survey inthe United States, 1968–1970. Preliminary Report to Congress. Atlanta, GA: DHEW, 1971.Google Scholar
8US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (DHEW), National Center for Health Statistics. Preliminary Findings ofthe First Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, United States, 1971–72. DHEW Publication No. (HRA) 74-1219-1. Rockville, MD: DHEW, 1974.Google Scholar
9McGovern, G. Hunger: USA. In: McGovern, G, ed. The Third Freedom: Ending Hunger in Our Time. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2001; 69–82.Google Scholar
10Kaufman, PR, MacDonald, JM, Lutz, SM, Smallwood, DM. Do the Poor Pay More for Food? Item Selection and Price Differences Affect Low-Income Household Food Costs. Agricultural Economic Report No. 759. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, 1997.Google Scholar
11Morland, K, Wing, S, Diez Roux, A. The contextual effect of thelocal food environment on residents’ diets: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study. American Journal of Public Health 2002; 92: 1761–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Edmonds, J, Baranowski, T, Baranowski, J, Cullen, KW, Myres, D. Ecological and socioeconomic correlates of fruit, juice, and vegetable consumption among African-American boys. Preventive Medicine 2001; 32: 476–81.Google Scholar
13Cummins, SCJ. The local food environment and health: some reflections from the United Kingdom. American Journal of Public Health 2003; 93: 521–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Wrigley, N, Warm, D, Margetts, B. Deprivation, diet and foodretail access: findings from the Leeds ‘food-deserts’ study. Environment & Planning A 2003; 35: 151–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Ohls, JC, Ponza, M, Moreno, L, Zambrowski, A, Cohen, R. FoodStamp Participants' Access to Food Retailers. Final Report. MPR Reference No. 8243-140. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 1999.Google Scholar
16Food and Nutrition Board, National Research Council. Recommended Dietary Allowances, 10th ed. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989.Google Scholar
17Gleason, P, Rangarajan, A, Olson, C. Dietary Intake and Dietary Attitudes among Food Stamp Participants and Other Low-Income Individuals. MPR Reference No. 8370-025. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 2000.Google Scholar
18Haines, PS, Popkin, BM, Guilkey, DK, DeVellis, R. Knowledge and Attitudes of US Men and Women: The 1989 Diet and Health Knowledge Survey and the 1989 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals. Human Nutrition Service Technical Reports Phase I–III. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, 1994.Google Scholar
19US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. The Food Guide Pyramid. Home andGarden Bulletin 252. Washington, DC: USDA, 1996.Google Scholar
20US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference [online], Release 16, 2003. Available at: http: //www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp. Accessed 6 October 2003.Google Scholar
21Morris, PM, Neuhauser, L, Campbell, C. Food security in rural America: a study of the availability and costs of food. Journalof Nutrition Education 1992; 24: 52S–8S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22Putnam, J, Allshouse, J. Food Consumption, Prices, and Expenditures, 1970–97. Statistical Bulletin No. 965. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, 1999.Google Scholar
23Lin, BH, Guthrie, J, Blaylock, JR. The Diets of America'sChildren: Influences of Dining Out, Household Characteristics, and Nutrition Knowledge. Agricultural Economic Report No. 746. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, 1996.Google Scholar
24Lin, BH, Guthrie, J, Frazao, E. Nutrient contribution of food away from home. In: Frazao, E, ed. America's Eating Habits: Changes and Consequences. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, 1999; 213–42.Google Scholar