Objectives Assessing client-level food waste is a priority for hunger relief organizations to effectively address food insecurity. Our objectives were: 1) to measure the amount of, and reasons for leftover food at the household level after receiving food from urban food pantries; 2) to assess differences in the amount of leftover food associated with different food pantry distribution models. Methods This was a prospective, observational study. Food-pantry clients (n = 53) were surveyed from four food pantries in Baltimore, MD. 28 of those clients were followed-up with 2 weeks later. Half of the follow-up sample used a client-choice food pantry in which clients select their own food, while the other half received pre-packed bags. At baseline, we recorded the brand, type, and weight of each product in client bags, and grouped them into Food Assortment Scoring Tool (FAST) categories. FAST scores were calculated for each bag by multiplying each category's gross weight share by a healthfulness parameter and summing the categories. At follow-up, clients estimated the percentage of each product that was consumed by their household, and reported what happened to the unused portion, and why it was unused. Results The average client choice bag weighed 27.8 ± 14.8 lbs, whereas the average pre-packed bag weighed 18.3 ± 5.3 lbs. Clients from client-choice food pantries had 22.6% of their bag leftover at follow-up; clients from traditional pantries had 34.1% of their bag leftover (P = .0375). At baseline, FAST scores were higher among traditional bags (70.3 ± 5.2) compared to client choice bags (63.5 ± 7.3) (P = .007). FAST scores of foods client-choice visitors used by follow-up was 66.7 ± 7.8, higher than scores of their baseline food selections (P = .014), suggesting use of healthy foods first. The greatest proportion of leftover food was beverages. The smallest proportion of leftover food was processed fruits and vegetables. The most common reason for not using an item was “Plan to use later” (80% of leftover items). Conclusions Food pantries distributing foods via a prepackaged bag model should consider switching to a client choice method to reduce leftover food, which may eventually be wasted. Further research should expand on this association using larger sample sizes and follow-up periods >2 weeks. Funding Sources Funded by the Bloomberg American Health Initiative Evidence Generation Awards.
Objectives To date, no intervention has attempted to improve the availability and accessibility of healthful options at food pantries in Baltimore. Our objective is to: 1) test the feasibility of various policy, educational and environmental strategies to improve the stocking and distribution of healthy options at food pantries, 2) assess the impact of a food pantry-based nutrition intervention at the pantry and client levels. Methods 2 small, 2 medium, and 3 large pantries were randomly selected from Maryland Food Bank's community-based network partners in Baltimore (n = 102) out of eligible and interested pantries. 1 small, 1 medium and 1 large pantry received intervention in 3 phases, each focusing on one food group: lean & low-sodium proteins; fruits & vegetables; healthy carbohydrates. Each phase used policy (stocking guidelines and switch to client choice distribution), educational (trainings for pantry staff; taste tests and cooking demos for clients), environmental strategies (shelf rearrangement; print materials for clients). Intervention had medium reach, high dose delivered, and high fidelity. Pantry-level impact was measured via variety scores for the 3 promoted food groups using data from Food Pantry Environmental Checklist. Client-level impact was measured via Food Assortment Scoring Tool scores for client bags. Paired t-tests were used to assess differences between intervention and comparison groups. Results For lean & low-sodium proteins, the difference in variety scores between post-intervention and baseline was 6.00 +/–5.29 for intervention pantries, and –1.00 +/–5.03 for comparison pantries (P = 0.13). For fruits & vegetables, the difference in variety scores between post-intervention and baseline was 1.67 +/–7.51 for intervention pantries, and 3.25 +/–7.46 for comparison pantries (P = 0.80). For healthy carbohydrates, the difference in variety scores between post-intervention and baseline was 5.33 +/–9.50 for intervention pantries, and 1.75 +/–6.50 for comparison pantries (P = 0.61). Conclusions Policy, educational and environmental strategies may increase the stocking of some healthful options at Baltimore food pantries. The impact of feasible strategies should be studied with a larger sample size to reach statistically significant conclusions. Funding Sources Johns Hopkins University Lerner Center for Public Health Promotion.
Objectives Real-world pricing interventions may increase healthy food purchases and decrease unhealthy food purchases, but simple tools for assessing the quality of food purchases are lacking. This study's primary aim is to assess the feasibility of using Food Assortment Scoring Tool (FAST) to calculate the healthfulness of individual food purchases at a community grocery store. Methods As part of a pricing intervention trial, purchasing data are being collected in a community grocery store in Baltimore, MD, using the store's point of sale system. To pilot the feasibility of utilizing FAST to assess the healthfulness of customer purchases, we analyzed 100 transactions of 7 participating loyalty card holders from September 7th, 2018 to December 3rd, 2019. FAST consists of 13 food categories. The total weight of foods in each category is calculated, divided by total weight of the entire food purchased, then multiplied by its healthfulness parameter and all are summed together. The overall FAST score ranges from 0–100 with 100 being the healthiest. Results The study team had challenges categorizing certain products sold at the supermarket, such as those with temporary barcodes to implement temporary reduced prices for quick sales. However, the process was preferable to assigning Healthy Eating Index scores to transactions. The average FAST score for individual purchases was 56.51 +/− 15.29. Beverages made up the largest average gross weight share at 40.35%. The food category with the smallest gross weight share was whole grains (0.10%). Conclusions FAST is an effective, simple tool to calculate the healthfulness of food purchases at a supermarket. We will extend our analysis of FAST scores to all 100 loyalty card customers participating in the study and report on the impact of the pricing intervention on purchasing patterns. Grocery stores and researchers implementing food retailer-based interventions should consider using FAST scores to evaluate the healthiness of consumer purchases. Funding Sources This research is supported by the Johns Hopkins Department of International Health Small Grant and a Healthy Eating Research (HER) Commissioned Analysis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.