Disparities in dietary behaviors have been directly linked to the food environment, including access to retail food outlets. The Coronavirus Disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to major changes in the distribution, sale, purchase, preparation, and consumption of food in the United States (US). This paper reflects on those changes and provides recommendations for research to understand the impact of the pandemic on the retail food environment (RFE) and consumer behavior. Using the Retail Food Environment and Customer Interaction Model, we describe the impact of COVID-19 in four key areas: (1) community, state, tribal, and federal policy; (2) retail actors, business models, and sources; (3) customer experiences; and (4) dietary intake. We discuss how previously existing vulnerabilities and inequalities based on race, ethnicity, class, and geographic location were worsened by the pandemic. We recommend approaches for building a more just and equitable RFE, including understanding the impacts of changing shopping behaviors and adaptations to federal nutrition assistance as well as how small food business can be made more sustainable. By better understanding the RFE adaptations that have characterized the COVID-19 pandemic, we hope to gain greater insight into how our food system can become more resilient in the future.

Poorer diets and subsequent higher rates of chronic disease among lower-income individuals may be partially attributed to reduced access to fresh fruits and vegetables (F&V) and other healthy foods. Mobile markets are an increasingly popular method for providing access to F&V in underserved communities, but evaluation efforts are limited. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of Veggie Van (VV), a mobile produce market, on F&V intake in lower-income communities using a group randomized controlled trial. VV is a mobile produce market that sells reduced-cost locally grown produce and offers nutrition and cooking education. We recruited 12 sites in lower-income communities in North Carolina (USA) to host VV, randomizing them to receive VV immediately (intervention) or after the 6-month study period (delayed intervention control). Participants at each site completed baseline and follow-up surveys including F&V intake, perceived access to fresh F&V and self-efficacy for purchasing, preparing and eating F&V. We used multiple linear regression to calculate adjusted differences in outcomes while controlling for baseline values, education and clustering within site. Among 142 participants who completed the follow-up, baseline F&V intake was 3.48 cups/day for control and 3.33 for intervention. At follow-up, adjusted change in F&V consumption was 0.95 cups/day greater for intervention participants (p = 0.005), but was attenuated to 0.51 cups per day (p = 0.11) after removing extreme values. VV customers increased their F&V consumption by 0.41 cups/day (n = 30) compared to a 0.25 cups/day decrease for 111 non-customers (p = 0.04). Intervention participants did not show significant improvements in perceived access to fresh F&V, but increased their self-efficacy for working more F&V into snacks (p = 0.02), making up a vegetable dish with what they had on hand (p = 0.03), and cooking vegetables in a way that is appealing to their family (p = 0.048). Mobile markets may help improve F&V intake in lower-income communities. Clinicaltrials.gov ID# NCT03026608 retrospectively registered January 2, 2017.

The retail food environment (RFE) has important implications for dietary intake and health, and dramatic changes in RFEs have been observed over the past few decades and years. Prior conceptual models of the RFE and its relationships with health and behavior have played an important role in guiding research; yet, the convergence of RFE changes and scientific advances in the field suggest the time is ripe to revisit this conceptualization. In this paper, we propose the Retail Food Environment and Customer Interaction Model to convey the evolving variety of factors and relationships that convene to influence food choice at the point of purchase. The model details specific components of the RFE, including business approaches, actors, sources, and the customer retail experience; describes individual, interpersonal, and household characteristics that affect customer purchasing; highlights the macro-level contexts (e.g., communities and nations) in which the RFE and customers behave; and addresses the wide-ranging outcomes produced by RFEs and customers, including: population health, food security, food justice, environmental sustainability, and business sustainability. We believe the proposed conceptualization helps to (1) provide broad implications for future research and (2) further highlight the need for transdisciplinary collaborations to ultimately improve a range of critical population outcomes.

Inequitable access to healthy food may contribute to health disparities. This study examines the relationship between the prevalence of adult diabetes and food access in the U.S. by county economic/racial composition. An ecological study from 2012 was used to estimate the relationship between diabetes and retail food outlet access. County diabetes prevalence was measured based on individual responses to the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey question, “Have you ever been told by a doctor that you have diabetes?” If the answer was “yes” individuals were classified as having diabetes. Retail food outlets included grocery stores, supercenters, farmer’s markets, full-service restaurants, fast food restaurants and convenience stores. Counties were categorized as “high-poverty” or “low-poverty”. Counties were categorized as low (< 4.6%), medium (4.6%–31.0%), and high (> 31.0%) percent minority residents. Multiple linear regression models estimated the association between retail food outlets and diabetes, controlling for confounders, and testing for interactions between retail food outlets and county racial composition. Regression models were conditioned on county economic composition. Data were analyzed in 2016. Density of retail foods outlets varied greatly by county economic and racial composition; counties with medium-minority populations had the least access to grocery stores and the highest access to fast food restaurants and convenience stores. Low poverty/low-minority population counties had the greatest access to farmer’s markets and grocery stores. For low poverty/low-minority counties, grocery stores were associated with decreased of diabetes prevalence. Supercenters were associated with an increase in diabetes prevalence for high-poverty/low-minority counties. Only low poverty/medium-minority counties had a statistically significant relationship between farmer’s markets and diabetes prevalence. Fast food restaurants were found to be positively associated with diabetes prevalence in all counties except high poverty/medium-minority. However, only low poverty/low-minority counties had a statistically significant relationship. Across all models, access to full service restaurants were significantly associated with lower prevalence of diabetes. Generally, access to convenience stores were associated with increased diabetes prevalence, except for high poverty/low-minority counties. The food environment is more strongly associated with diabetes prevalence for wealthier counties with a lower proportion of minority residents. This is important given efforts to increase food access in vulnerable communities. Availability of healthier food may not be enough to change health outcomes.

Action Through Churches in Time to Save Lives (ACTS) of Wellness was a cluster randomized controlled trial developed to promote colorectal cancer screening and physical activity (PA) within urban African American churches. Churches were recruited from North Carolina (n = 12) and Michigan (n = 7) and were randomized to intervention (n = 10) or comparison (n = 9). Intervention participants received three mailed tailored newsletters addressing colorectal cancer screening and PA behaviors over approximately 6 months. Individuals who were not up-to-date for screening at baseline could also receive motivational calls from a peer counselor. The main outcomes were up-to-date colorectal cancer screening and Metabolic Equivalency Task (MET)-hours/week of moderate–vigorous PA. Multivariate analyses examined changes in the main outcomes controlling for church cluster, gender, marital status, weight, and baseline values. Baseline screening was high in both intervention (75.9%, n = 374) and comparison groups (73.7%, n = 338). Screening increased at follow-up: +6.4 and +4.7 percentage points for intervention and comparison, respectively (p = .25). Baseline MET-hours/week of PA was 7.8 (95% confidence interval [6.8, 8.7]) for intervention and 8.7 (95% confidence interval [7.6, 9.8]) for the comparison group. There were no significant changes (p = .15) in PA for intervention (−0.30 MET-hours/week) compared with the comparison (−0.05 MET-hours/week). Among intervention participants, PA increased more for those who participated in church exercise programs, and screening improved more for those who spoke with a peer counselor or recalled the newsletters. Overall, the intervention did not improve PA or screening in an urban church population. These findings support previous research indicating that structured PA opportunities are necessary to promote change in PA and churches need more support to initiate effective peer counselor programs.

We conducted a pilot evaluation of the Veggie Van, a mobile produce market that brings weekly boxes of reduced-cost locally grown fruits and vegetables (F&V) to lower-income communities and offers cooking and nutrition education to customers. We conducted surveys just prior to starting Veggie Van at each of 3 sites and again at 2–3 months. F&V intake was measured with a 2-question item and a 10-item food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) in a subset of participants. At baseline, average servings/day of F&V was 4.9 (SD = 2.6, n = 60). At follow-up, individuals who reported shopping at Veggie Van frequently (n = 32) increased their F&V consumption by 0.41 servings/day compared with a decrease of −1.19 for those who rarely/never used Veggie Van (n = 27), a total difference of 1.6 servings/day (P = .01). There were no statistically significant differences in F&V consumption between groups based on the FFQ measure. Frequent shoppers reported additional health improvements and increases in their ability to buy enough F&V. We conclude that offering weekly boxes of affordable F&V paired with education in underserved communities may improve F&V consumption for frequent program users.