Neighborhood Retail Food Environment and Fruit and Vegetable Intake in a Multiethnic Urban Population

Department of Public Health, Mental Health, and Administrative Nursing, College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60612, USA.
American journal of health promotion: AJHP (Impact Factor: 2.37). 03/2009; 23(4):255-64. DOI: 10.4278/ajhp.071204127
Source: PubMed


To examine relationships between the neighborhood food environment and fruit and vegetable intake in a multiethnic urban population.
Analysis of cross-sectional survey and observational data.
One hundred forty-six neighborhoods within three large geographic communities of Detroit, Michigan.
Probability sample of 919 African-American, Latino, and white adults.
The dependent variable was mean daily fruit and vegetable servings, as measured by using a modified Block 98 food frequency questionnaire. Independent variables included the neighborhood food environment: store availability (i.e., large grocery, specialty, convenience, liquor, small grocery), supermarket proximity (i.e., street-network distance to nearest chain grocer), and perceived and observed neighborhood fresh fruit and vegetable supply (i.e., availability, variety, quality, affordability).
Weighted, multilevel regression.
Presence of a large grocery store in the neighborhood was associated with, on average, 0.69 more daily fruit and vegetable servings in the full sample. Relationships between the food environment and fruit and vegetable intake did not differ between whites and African-Americans. However, Latinos, compared with African-Americans, who had a large grocery store in the neighborhood consumed 2.20 more daily servings of fruits and vegetables. Presence of a convenience store in the neighborhood was associated with 1.84 fewer daily fruit and vegetable servings among Latinos than among African-Americans.
The neighborhood food environment influences fruit and vegetable intake, and the size of this relationship may vary for different racial/ethnic subpopulations.

Download full-text


Available from: Laurie Lachance, May 28, 2015
  • Source
    • "However, the increase in healthy food consumption was only significant among Latinos and not significant among whites or African Americans . The presence of a convenience store and fast-food restaurants was negatively associated with fruit and vegetable consumption (Zenk et al. 2009) and has been identified as a determinant of fast-food consumption (Lucan, Barg, and Long 2010). Lucan, Barg, and Long's work with lowincome African Americans (n ¼ 40) in Philadelphia found that availability and cost were top barriers to fruit and vegetable consumption. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article reviews empirical scholarship on preventable actual causes of death—namely, physical activity, food, and traffic-induced injury–related built environment interventions that lead to health improvements. A systems perspective built on the ecological health model is offered that addresses social determinants of health- and place-based contexts. In doing so, this article offers examples of upstream approaches to address the actual causes of death and ends with guidance on planning practice, research, and teaching organized around the research divisions of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning.
    Journal of Planning Literature 12/2014; 30(3). DOI:10.1177/0885412214561337 · 1.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The sample of stores included in this reliability test however was small (n = 14) compared to similar studies (n = 30 to 85) [13,17,19]. The reliability (kappa 0.60) for fruit and vegetable quality was higher than the results reported in some studies [17], but lower than the results of others [57]. Future work using photos or a simple two-point scale of acceptable/unacceptable can provide a more consistent measure of quality as has been used in previous work [17,58]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The consumer nutrition environment has been conceptualised as in-store environmental factors that influence food shopping habits. More healthful in-store environments could be characterised as those which promote healthful food choices such as selling good quality healthy foods or placing them in prominent locations to prompt purchasing. Research measuring the full-range of in-store environmental factors concurrently is limited. To develop a summary score of ‘healthfulness’ composed of nine in-store factors that influence food shopping behaviour, and to assess this score by store type and neighbourhood deprivation. A cross-sectional survey of 601 retail food stores, including supermarkets, grocery stores and convenience stores, was completed in Hampshire, United Kingdom between July 2010 and June 2011. The survey measured nine variables (variety, price, quality, promotions, shelf placement, store placement, nutrition information, healthier alternatives and single fruit sale) to assess the healthfulness of retail food stores on seven healthy and five less healthy foods that are markers of diet quality. Four steps were completed to create nine individual variable scores and another three to create an overall score of healthfulness for each store. Analysis of variance showed strong evidence of a difference in overall healthfulness by store type (p < 0.001). Large and premium supermarkets offered the most healthful shopping environments for consumers. Discount supermarkets, ‘world’, convenience and petrol stores offered less healthful environments to consumers however there was variation across the healthfulness spectrum. No relationship between overall healthfulness and neighbourhood deprivation was observed (p = 0.1). A new composite measure of nine variables that can influence food choices was developed to provide an overall assessment of the healthfulness of retail food stores. This composite score could be useful in future research to measure the relationship between main food store and quality of diet, and to evaluate the effects of multi-component food environment interventions.
    International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 05/2014; 11(1):69. DOI:10.1186/1479-5868-11-69 · 4.11 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Socioeconomic status has been identified as a key predictor of diet across developed countries (Darmon and Drewnowski, 2008; Monsivais and Drewnowski, 2009). Fruit and vegetable consumption tends to vary inversely with distance to a grocery store (Rose and Richards, 2004; Zenk et al., 2008), although at least one study found this not to be the case (Boone-Heinonen et al., 2011). Statistically significant correlations between socioeconomic status and the local food environment have been found in numerous case studies, particularly in Midwestern and Eastern U.S. cities (Alwitt and Donley, 1997; Moore and Diez Roux, 2006; Franco et al., 2008; Gordon et al., 2011). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper investigated the role of grocery store prices in structuring food access for low-income households in Portland, Oregon. We conducted a detailed healthful foods market basket survey and developed an index of store cost based on the USDA Thrifty Food Plan. Using this index, we estimated the difference in street-network distance between the nearest low-cost grocery store and the nearest grocery store irrespective of cost. Spatial regression of this metric in relation to income, poverty, and gentrification at the census tract scale lead to a new theory regarding food access in the urban landscape. Food deserts are sparse in Portland, but food mirages are abundant, particularly in gentrifying areas where poverty remains high. In a food mirage, grocery stores are plentiful but prices are beyond the means of low-income households, making them functionally equivalent to food deserts in that a long journey to obtain affordable, nutritious food is required in either case. Results suggested that evaluation of food environments should, at a minimum, consider both proximity and price in assessing healthy food access for low-income households.
    Health & Place 08/2013; 24C:131-139. DOI:10.1016/j.healthplace.2013.07.008 · 2.81 Impact Factor
Show more