Supermarkets are natural and important settings for implementing environmental interventions to improve healthy eating, and governmental policies could help improve the nutritional quality of purchases in this setting. This review aimed to: (1) identify governmental policies in the United States (U.S.), including regulatory and legislative actions of federal, tribal, state, and local governments, designed to promote healthy choices in supermarkets; and (2) synthesize evidence of these policies’ effects on retailers, consumers, and community health. We searched five policy databases and developed a list of seven policy actions that meet our inclusion criteria: calorie labeling of prepared foods in supermarkets; increasing U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits; financial incentives for the purchase of fruit and vegetables; sweetened beverage taxes; revisions to the USDA Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) food package; financial assistance for supermarkets to open in underserved areas; and allowing online purchases with SNAP. We searched PubMed, Econlit, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Business Source Ultimate to identify peer-reviewed, academic, English-language literature published at any time until January 2020; 147 studies were included in the review. Sweetened beverage taxes, revisions to the WIC food package, and financial incentives for fruits and vegetables were associated with improvements in dietary behaviors (food purchases and/or consumption). Providing financial incentives to supermarkets to open in underserved areas and increases in SNAP benefits were not associated with changes in food purchasing or diet quality but may improve food security. More research is needed to understand the effects of calorie labeling in supermarkets and online SNAP purchasing.
24 September 2018 in Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
JAFSCD: Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development. Publication of the Thomas A. Lyson Center for Civic Agriculture and Food Systems
2 November 2020 in Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, food policy councils (FPCs) have emerged as a critical struc¬ture for organizing community-based responses to multiple food system issues. Strong relationships with various food system stakeholders have proven essential in inspiring coordinated action. Using the early results of a Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future survey of FPCs (2020), we discuss some of the accomplishments and contributions that 118 FPCs have made toward addressing hunger and supporting producers, school food, food chain workers, racial equity, and resilience in the United States and in tribal nations.
Food policy councils (FPCs) are one form of community coalition that aims to address challenges to local food systems and enhance availability, accessibility, and affordability of healthy foods for local residents. We used data from the 2014 National Survey of Community-Based Policy and Environmental Supports for Healthy Eating and Active Living, a nationally representative survey of US municipalities (n = 2029), to examine the prevalence of FPCs and cross-sectional associations between FPCs and four types of supports for healthy food access (approaches to help food stores, practices to support farmers markets, transportation-related supports, and community planning documents). Overall, 7.7% of municipalities reported having a local or regional FPC. FPCs were more commonly reported among larger municipalities with ≥50,000 people (29.2%, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 21.6, 36.8) and western region municipalities (13.2%, 95% CI: 9.6, 16.8). After multivariable adjustment, municipalities with FPCs had significantly higher odds of having all four types of supports, compared to those without FPCs (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) range: 2.4–3.4). Among municipalities with FPCs (n = 156), 41% reported having a local government employee or elected official as a member, and 46% had a designated health or public health representative. Although FPCs were uncommon, municipalities that reported having a local or regional FPC were more likely to report having supports for healthy food access for their residents.
17 June 2014 in Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
As cities across the nation seek to improve healthy food access, this participant observer case study highlights how one midsized city successfully developed a collaborative infrastructure to understand and address inequity in healthy food access. We trace the genesis and evolution of Baltimore's Food Policy Task Force, the hiring of a food policy director, and the establishment of the Baltimore Food Policy Initiative, which is an intergovernmental partnership to increase access to healthy, affordable foods in urban food deserts. While some cities have approached food access issues through community coalitions pressuring city government or government edicts, Baltimore successfully identified its need, used available research to drive and inform action, established priorities, and acted expeditiously with a focus on sustainability. This case study is relevant and applicable for those seeking to influence change in local food policy in midsized urban settings.
The COVID-19 pandemic pushed millions of Americans into food insecurity. Food policy councils (FPCs) across the country played a vital role in organizing coordinated food responses across multiple sectors. We used a social network analysis (SNA) approach to investigate: (1) the network of partnering organizations and agencies within FPCs; (2) how the characteristics of FPCs’ network partnerships (i.e., degree, coreness, and density) related to programmatic, policy, and advocacy actions in response to the pandemic; and (3) how FPCs’ use of a racial or social equity framework shifted their network partnerships and responses. Local government agencies and food supply chain actors were core in FPCs’ network partnerships, while public utilities, correctional facilities, social justice groups, and others were non-core partners. Network density was more likely to be associated with any action by FPCs, and it was especially pronounced for advocacy actions taken by FPCs; trends were similar among FPCs that reported using a racial or social equity framework. The findings begin to uncover core actors in FPCs’ partnerships and opportunities to establish new partnerships, particularly with social justice groups. The results also suggest that network density (interconnectedness) may be more important than other network characteristics when responding to food-related needs.