This paper investigates the effect of food environments, characterized as food swamps, on adult obesity rates. Food swamps have been described as areas with a high-density of establishments selling high-calorie fast food and junk food, relative to healthier food options. This study examines multiple ways of categorizing food environments as food swamps and food deserts, including alternate versions of the Retail Food Environment Index. We merged food outlet, sociodemographic and obesity data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Environment Atlas, the American Community Survey, and a commercial street reference dataset. We employed an instrumental variables (IV) strategy to correct for the endogeneity of food environments (i.e., that individuals self-select into neighborhoods and may consider food availability in their decision). Our results suggest that the presence of a food swamp is a stronger predictor of obesity rates than the absence of full-service grocery stores. We found, even after controlling for food desert effects, food swamps have a positive, statistically significant effect on adult obesity rates. All three food swamp measures indicated the same positive association, but reflected different magnitudes of the food swamp effect on rates of adult obesity (p values ranged from 0.00 to 0.16). Our adjustment for reverse causality, using an IV approach, revealed a stronger effect of food swamps than would have been obtained by naïve ordinary least squares (OLS) estimates. The food swamp effect was stronger in counties with greater income inequality (p < 0.05) and where residents are less mobile (p < 0.01). Based on these findings, local government policies such as zoning laws simultaneously restricting access to unhealthy food outlets and incentivizing healthy food retailers to locate in underserved neighborhoods warrant consideration as strategies to increase health equity.

BackgroundFruit and vegetable (F&V) intake can reduce risks for chronic disease, but is much lower than recommended amounts in most Western populations, especially for those with low income levels. Rigorous research is needed on practical, cost-effective interventions that address environmental as well as personal determinants of F&V intake. This paper presents the results of a cluster randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of ‘Live Well, Viva Bien’ (LWVB), a multicomponent intervention that included discount, mobile fresh F&V markets in conjunction with nutrition education.MethodsFifteen subsidized housing sites in Providence County, Rhode Island (8 intervention and 7 control sites) were randomized using a random number generator. Of these, nine housed elderly and/or disabled residents and six housed families. A total of 1597 adult housing site residents (treatment n = 837; control n = 760) were enrolled (73% women, 54% Hispanic, 17% black, Mean age 54 years). A year-long multicomponent intervention including mobile F&V markets plus nutrition education (e.g. campaigns, DVDs, newsletters, recipes, and chef demonstrations) was implemented at intervention sites. Physical activity and stress interventions were implemented at control sites. Follow-up occurred at 6 and 12 months. The main outcome measure was F&V consumption measured by National Cancer Institute’s ‘Eating at America’s Table All Day Screener’.ResultsFrom baseline to 12 months, the intervention group increased total F&V intake by 0.44 cups with the control group decreasing intake by 0.08 cups (p < .02). Results also showed an increased frequency of F&V eating behaviors compared to the control group (p < .01). There was a clear dose response effect of the F&V markets with participants who reported attending all or most of the markets increasing F&V intake by 2.1 cups and 0.86 cups, respectively compared with less than half cup increases for lower levels of market attendance (p < .05). Use of the DVDs, recipes and taste-testings was also associated with greater increases in F&V intake; however, use of other educational components was not.ConclusionsLWVB is the first cluster, randomized controlled trial to demonstrate the efficacy of year-round F&V markets on improving F&V intake for low-income adults, which provides an evidence-base to bolster the mission of mobile produce markets. Further, the results more broadly support investment in environmental changes to alleviate disparities in F&V consumption and diet-related health inequities.Trial registration numberClinicatrials.gov registration number: NCT02669472

Both food swamps and food deserts have been associated with racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in obesity rates. Little is known about how the distribution of food deserts and food swamps relate to disparities in self-reported dietary habits, and health status, particularly for historically marginalized groups. In a national U.S. sample of 4305 online survey participants (age 18+), multinomial logistic regression analyses were used to assess by race and ethnicity the likelihood of living in a food swamp or food desert area. Predicted probabilities of self-reported dietary habits, health status, and weight status were calculated using the fitted values from ordinal or multinomial logistic regression models adjusted for relevant covariates. Results showed that non-Hispanic, Black participants (N = 954) were most likely to report living in a food swamp. In the full and White subsamples (N = 2912), the perception of residing in a food swamp/desert was associated with less-healthful self-reported dietary habits overall. For non-Hispanic Blacks, regression results also showed that residents of perceived food swamp areas (OR = 0.66, p < 0.01, 95% CI (0.51, 0.86)) had a lower diet quality than those not lving in a food swamp/food desert area. Black communities in particular may be at risk for environment-linked diet-related health inequities. These findings suggest that an individual’s perceptions of food swamp and food desert exposure may be related to diet habits among adults.

No abstract

For individuals who are food insecure, food pantries can be a vital resource to improve access to adequate food. Access to adequate food may be conceptualized within five dimensions: availability (item variety), accessibility (e.g., hours of operation), accommodation (e.g., cultural sensitivity), affordability (costs, monetary or otherwise), and acceptability (e.g., as related to quality). This study examined the five dimensions of access in a convenience sample of 50 food pantries in the Bronx, NY. The design was cross-sectional. Qualitative data included researcher observations and field notes from unstructured interviews with pantry workers. Quantitative data included frequencies for aspects of food access, organized by the five access dimensions. Inductive analysis of quantitative and qualitative data revealed three main inter-related findings: (1) Pantries were not reliably open: only 50% of pantries were open during hours listed in an online directory (several had had prolonged or indefinite closures); (2) Even when pantries were open, all five access dimensions showed deficiencies (e.g., limited inventory, few hours, pre-selected handouts without consideration of preferences, opportunity costs, and inferior-quality items); (3) Open pantries frequently had insufficient food supply to meet client demand. To deal with mismatch between supply and demand, pantries developed rules for food provision. Rules could break down in cases of pantries receiving food deliveries, leading to workarounds, and in cases of compelling client need, leading to exceptions. Adherence to rules, versus implementation of workarounds and/or exceptions, was worker- and situation-dependent and, thus, unpredictable. Overall, pantry food provision was unreliable. Future research should explore clients' perception of pantry access considering multiple access dimensions. Future research should also investigate drivers of mismatched supply and demand to create more predictable, reliable, and adequate food provision.