|
The State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables, 2009
provides for the first time information on fruit and vegetable (F&V)
consumption and policy and environmental support within each state.*
Fruits and vegetables are important for optimal child growth, weight
management, and chronic disease prevention.1,2 Supporting
increased F&V access, availability, and reduced price are key
strategies towards the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's
(CDC) objective of improved F&V consumption and thus improved nutrition among all
Americans.
National and state-specific information is reported in the State
Indicator Report for behavioral indicators and policy and
environmental indicators. The behavioral indicators are derived from
objectives for F&V consumption outlined in Healthy People 2010,2
a framework for the nation's health priorities, and data is from
CDC's health surveillance systems. The policy and environmental
indicators are from multiple data sources and measure several
aspects of a state's ability to support the consumption of F&V. Each
indicator can be measured in most states. Individual states,
however, may have data collected through state-wide surveys and/or
have policies enacted outside the monitoring period that can augment
the information in this State Indicator Report and thus can
be used to further inform decision makers.
Throughout states and communities, many groups play a role in
supporting policy and environmental change to ensure that
individuals and families can easily purchase and consume F&V. When
state officials, health professionals, employers, retail owners,
farmers, school staff, and community members work together their
efforts can increase the number of Americans who live healthier
lives by increasing the availability of affordable healthier food
choices such as F&V.
Data in the State Indicator Report can be used by states to
track progress on a variety of indicators in order to—
- Portray how states support the consumption of F&V.
- Celebrate state successes.
- Identify opportunities for improvement of F&V support
through environmental, policy and/or systems approaches.
The national Healthy People 2010 fruit objective and vegetable
objective are to increase the proportion of Americans aged at least 2
years consuming daily ≥2 servings of fruit to 75% (objective 19-5) and ≥3
servings of vegetables to 50% (objective 19-6), respectively.2
In the State Indicator Report, each state's progress towards
the national Healthy People 2010 fruit objective, vegetable
objective,
and both F&V objectives are assessed from the F&V consumption survey
items included in the 2007 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance
System (BRFSS) (adults aged ≥ 18 years) and the 2007 Youth Risk
Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) (adolescents in grades 9–12).
These data sources were selected because all states have BRFSS F&V
data and the majority of states have YRBSS F&V data allowing for
comparisons.
This is the first time that national and state-specific data for the
proportion of Americans in each state meeting both F&V consumption
objectives is presented. The information for this indicator differs from
the older Healthy People 2000 objective of 5 or more F&V as that
measure could be met by only consuming one component, e.g. fruit.
Confidence intervals are provided in addition to the estimates and
should be used when comparing data. The behavioral indicators
profile the extent to which adults and adolescents in the state
consume F&V as derived from the Healthy People 2010
objectives and
are the —
- Proportion of adults in the state consuming daily: ≥2 fruit
(objective 19-5), ≥3 vegetables (objective 19-6), and both ≥2 fruit and ≥3
vegetables (both objectives 19-5 and 19-6).
- Proportion of adolescents in the state consuming daily: ≥2
fruit (objective 19-5), ≥3 vegetables (objective 19-6), and both ≥2 fruit
and ≥3 vegetables (both objectives 19-5 and 19-6).
Data and Maps
The indicators represent three different types of strategies for
improved F&V consumption. These types of strategies can occur or be
supported at the state-level and/or occur or be supported at the
community-level across the state. States may focus on a few or many
of the indicators based on their existing capacity, partnerships,
and resources. The strategy areas also generally reflect similar
strategies to those that support healthy food choices at the local,
community, or school level3-5 and strategies that encourage
communities to organize for change:3
- Availability of healthier food retail in communities.
- Availability of healthier foods and nutrition services in
schools.
- Food system support.
For more, see
Policy and Environmental Indicators Data Table.
Strategies and policies to improve the food environment can
include increased access to healthier foods such as F&V through
retail vendors in communities. This can include increased access to
supermarkets and grocery stores that typically stock a high
proportion of healthier foods including F&V, improved availability
of healthier foods such as F&V in small stores including convenience
and corner stores, and more farm-to-consumer approaches such as
stands and markets where farmers directly sell F&V to consumers.6-8
- Percentage of census tracts that have healthier food
retailers located within the tract or within 1/2-mile of tract
boundaries.
Having adequate neighborhood access to F&V such as through
supermarkets, larger grocery stories, and F&V markets has been shown
to be associated with increased F&V consumption.8,9 One measure of
access to F&V in a neighborhood is the percentage of state census
tracts (a subdivisions of counties designed to be homogeneous with
respect to population characteristics, economic status, and living
conditions delineated by local authorities under U.S. Census Bureau
Guidelines) that have typical healthier food retailers
(supermarkets, larger grocery stores, warehouse clubs, and F&V
markets) located within 1/2-mile of their boundaries. Areas without
these types of retailers, however, may still have adequate access if
smaller stores provide quality and affordable produce.
- Policy for healthier food retail.
State-level policies or laws that support access through
healthier food retail also have the potential to increase F&V
consumption and improve nutrition.7 Such policies include
legislation and executive actions that provide for 1) the building
or placement of new food retail outlets in underserved areas (e.g.,
grants/loans for building new supermarkets); 2) renovation and
equipment upgrades of existing retail outlets to accommodate an
increased availability of healthier foods (e.g., purchasing
refrigerators for small corner stores to allow the sale of fresh or
frozen F&V); and/or 3) increases in and promotion of F&V at food
retail outlets (e.g., increase display or shelf space, shelf
labeling, or signage such as point of decision information).
- Farmers markets per 100,000 state residents.
- Percentage of farmers markets that accept electronic
benefits transfer (EBT).
- Percentage of farmers markets that accept WIC Farmers Market
Nutrition Program coupons.
Farmers markets are a mechanism for purchasing foods from local
farms and can augment access to F&V from typical retail stores or
provide a retail venue for F&V in areas lacking such stores.7,10
The number of farmers' markets per 100,000 state residents provides
a broad estimate of the availability of F&V from farmers markets
adjusted for variation in population sizes. Farmers markets can also
aid the local economy and act as important venues for low-income
individuals and families by allowing those who participate in
federal assistance programs administered by the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) to have increased F&V access.10 The
percentage of farmers markets that accept Electronic Benefits
Transfer (EBT) is one indicator of the availability of markets to
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants,
formerly known as food stamps, and other federal program recipients
using electronic debit card systems and to other community residents
using bank debit cards. Similarly, the percentage of farmers markets
that allow purchases through the Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Farmers Market
Nutrition Program (FMNP) coupons is an estimate of the availability
of this potentially important source of F&V to WIC mothers and their
children.11
Schools are uniquely positioned to model and reinforce healthful
eating behaviors including F&V as part of foods offered on the
school campus and at school-related activities among youth, school
staff, parents, and community members.
- Percentage of middle and high schools that offer fruits (not
juice) and non-fried vegetables as competitive foods.
The Institute of Medicine recommends that competitive foods (food
sold outside the reimbursable school meal programs such as in
vending machines, school stores, snack bars, or canteens) be
limited.5 When food is offered or sold, it should be nutritious
foods, including F&V.5 Competitive foods are widely available in
many middle and almost all high schools and thus increasing the
percentage of these schools that offer fruit (not fruit juice) and
non-fried vegetables to students can support a food environment in
the school setting that more closely aligns with current dietary
guidance.
- Policy for Farm-to-School programs.
Farm-to-School programs can also improve access to F&V in the
school setting and can facilitate education services about health,
nutrition, and food production through training services for food
providers, teachers, and/or parents and experiential learning for
youth and school staff through school gardens and farm visits.12,
13 The existence of state-level policies such as legislation
for Farm-to-School programs show support for program creation,
expansion, and maintenance.
A systems approach to food considers the many factors involved in
getting F&V from farm to consumer including aspects of food
production, processing, distribution, and retail.14 Also
included in a food system approach are the participants in that
system, including farmers, industries, workers, governments,
institutional purchasers, communities, and consumers.
- Percentage of cropland acreage harvested for fruits and
vegetables.
Cropland acreage harvested for F&V as reported by the USDA is a
broad indicator of domestic F&V inputs to the food system. Although
the USDA agriculture survey is comprehensive and collects
information on acreage to the 1/10-acre, the cropland acreage
measure lacks generalizability among some states because of factors
such as the types of plants harvested and their subsequent actual
yields as well as differences in the ability of certain states'
growing and environmental conditions which can affect usable land
for growing and harvesting purposes.
- State-level food policy council.
- Local food policy councils.
Food policy councils and related food committees or coalitions
are an organized, multi-stakeholder organization that typically
attempts to support environmental and policy change which can
support improved food environments for healthy eating.3
Their multi-stakeholder members attempt to work together on their
designated area's food system issues in a coordinated fashion and
support and advise citizens and governments in developing policies
and programs to improve the regional, state, and/or local food
system. These councils can aid community F&V access by encouraging
improvement of retail stores, supporting farm to institute programs,
and designing model procurement policies and practices for schools,
work sites, and other community organizations.
National
Action Guide (PDF-160k) for the State Indicator Report
on Fruits and Vegetables, 2009, recommends strategies and policies for increased fruit
and vegetable access, availability, and affordability through policy
and environmental supports across communities, schools, and the food
system. The Action Guide summarizes the national data and provides
potential actions that government and business leaders, coalitions,
community-based organizations, and professionals can take to improve
Americans' nutrition. Resources are provided to aid in taking
action.
Proportion of adults in the state consuming daily: ≥2 fruit,
≥3 vegetables, and both ≥2 fruit and ≥3 vegetables.
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (adults aged ≥ 18 years),
2007. Weighted percentage.
The BRFSS F&V module includes 6 questions delivered via telephone
survey that were preceded by the following statement: "These next
questions are about the foods you usually eat or drink. Please tell
me how often you eat or drink each one, for example, twice a week,
three times a month, and so forth." 1) "How often do you drink fruit
juices such as orange, grapefruit, or tomato?" 2) "Not counting
juice, how often do you eat fruit?" 3) "How often do you eat green
salad?" 4) "How often do you eat potatoes, not including French
fries, fried potatoes, or potato chips?" 5) "How often do you eat
carrots?" 6) "Not counting carrots, potatoes, or salad, how many
servings of vegetables do you usually eat? (Example: a serving of
vegetables at both lunch and dinner would be two servings.)."
Response categories ranged from never to an open ended number of
times per day. Participants were not given a definition of serving
size. Total daily fruit consumption was calculated based on
responses to questions 1 and 2, and total daily vegetable
consumption was based on questions 3-6 (note: the answer to question
6 was treated as times per day).
Available at
http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/technical_infodata/surveydata/2007.htm.
Proportion of adolescents in the state consuming daily: ≥2 fruit,
≥3 vegetables, and both ≥2 fruit and ≥3 vegetables.
Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (adolescents in grades
9–12), 2007. Weighted percentage.
The YRBSS F&V module includes 6 questions delivered via classroom
survey: 1) “During the past 7 days, how many times did you drink
100% fruit juices such as orange juice, apple juice, or grape juice?
(Do not count punch, Kool-Aid, sports drinks, or other
fruit-flavored drinks.)” 2) “During the past 7 days, how many times
did you eat fruit? (Do not count fruit juice.)” 3) “During the past
7 days, how many times did you eat green salad?” 4) “During the past
7 days, how many times did you eat potatoes? (Do not count french
fries, fried potatoes, or potato chips.)” 5) “During the past 7
days, how many times did you eat carrots?” 6) “During the past 7
days, how many times did you eat other vegetables? (Do not count
green salad, potatoes, or carrots.).” Response categories ranged
from 0 times in the last 7 days to 4 or more times per day. Total
daily fruit consumption was calculated based on responses to
questions 1 and 2, and total daily vegetable consumption was based
on responses to questions 3-6.
States with no estimates were due to either not having collected
survey data, to not having achieved a high enough overall response
rate to receive weighted results, or missing 1 or more of module
items during administration of the survey.
http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs/pdf/2007_National_YRBS_Data_Users_Manual.pdf
Available at
http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs/data/index.htm.
Percentage of census tracts that have healthier food retailers
located within the tract or within 1/2-mile of tract boundaries.
Numerator: Retail Data, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Database last updated November 2007 which includes information on
retail food establishments derived from Dun and Bradstreet
commercial data.
The following stores as defined by North American Industry
Classification Codes (NAICS) were included: Supermarkets and larger
grocery stores (NAICS 445110; supermarkets further defined as stores
with >= 50 annual payroll employees and larger grocery stores
defined as stores with 10-49 employees); Fruit and Vegetable Markets
(NAICS 445230); Warehouse Clubs (NAICS 452910). Fruit and vegetable
markets include establishments that retail produce and includes
stands, permanent stands, markets, and permanent markets. Produce is
typically from wholesale but can include local. The 2007 North
American Industry Classification Codes descriptions. Available at
http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/. Date accessed July 1,
2009.
Denominator: Census Tract Information, 2000 United States Census
Bureau. Available at
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tractez.html. Date accessed July
1, 2009.
Policy for healthier food retail
State-level food retail policies (legislation, executive action)
enacted (yes/no) between January 1, 2001, and August 1, 2009, and
qualified if they supported any of the following objectives:
a) the building and/or placement of new food retail outlets (e.g.
new supermarkets in underserved areas, loan financing program for
small business development);
b) renovation and equipment upgrades of existing food retail outlets
(e.g. purchasing refrigerators for small corner stores to allow for
the sale of fresh produce);
c) increases in and promotion of foods encouraged by the 2005
Dietary Guidelines for Americans stocked or available at food retail
outlets (e.g. increase display or shelf space for encouraged foods
such as F&V; assistance in marketing of these healthier foods such
as through point of decision information).
Information on policy was obtained from the following three data
sources:
1. CDC Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity Legislative
Database. Date accessed July 1, 2009. Available at
http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/DNPALeg/.
2. National Conference of State Legislatures Healthy Community
Design and Access to Healthy Food Legislation Database. Date
accessed August 11, 2009. Available at
http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=13227.*
3. The Food Trust. Date accessed August 11, 2009. Available at
http://www.thefoodtrust.org/php/programs/fffi.php;* Available at
http://www.thefoodtrust.org/php/programs/super.market.campaign.php#FFFIcreation.*
Farmers markets per 100,000 state residents
Numerator: Farmers Market List. United States Department of
Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Services. Released August 2008.
Date accessed September 1, 2009. Available at
http://apps.ams.usda.gov/FarmersMarkets/.
Denominator: Population Estimates United States Census Bureau. July
2008. Date accessed July 1, 2009. Available at
http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html.
Percentage of farmers markets that accept EBT
Numerator: Farmers markets that accept EBT. United States Department
of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Services. Released August
2008. Farmers' Market Search. Date accessed September 1, 2009.
Available at
http://apps.ams.usda.gov/FarmersMarkets/.
Denominator: Total farmers markets. United States Department of
Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Services. Released August 2008.
Farmers' Market Search. Date accessed September 1, 2009. Available
at
http://apps.ams.usda.gov/FarmersMarkets/.
Percentage of farmers markets that accept WIC FMNP coupons
Numerator: United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Marketing Services. Released August 2008. Farmers' Market Search.
Date accessed September 1, 2009. Available at
http://apps.ams.usda.gov/FarmersMarkets/.
Denominator: Total farmers markets. United States Department of
Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Services. Released August 2008.
Farmers' Market Search. Date accessed September 1, 2009. Available
at
http://apps.ams.usda.gov/FarmersMarkets/.
Percentage of middle and high schools that offer fruits (not juice)
and non-fried vegetables as competitive foods
Numerator: Number of middle and high schools (via principal survey)
that had affirmative response to Q. 32 about whether students can
purchase from competitive food venues and affirmative to Q.33: “Can
students purchase each of the following snack foods or beverages
from vending machines or at the school store, canteen, or snack
bar?” Yes to both response categories K. Fruits (not juice) and L.
Non-fried vegetables (not juice). States with estimates are those
with weighted data (at least 70% of the principals or lead health
education teachers in the sample completed the survey).
Denominator: All middle and all high-schools surveyed.
CDC 2008 School Health Profiles, School Principal Survey
Available at
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyYouth/profiles/2008/QuestionnaireP.rtf.
Policy for farm-to-school
State-level legislation for Farm-to-School programs enacted between
January 1, 2001, and August 1, 2009, and qualified if the policy
included one or more of the multiple components of the National Farm
to School Program definition according to the Center for Food &
Justice,12 including serving F&V procured within the state,
providing agriculture, health and nutrition education opportunities,
and supporting local and regional farmers. Information on policy was
obtained from the following two data sources:
1. CDC Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity Legislative
Database. Date accessed July 1, 2009. Available at
http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/DNPALeg/.
2. National Conference of State Legislatures Healthy Community
Design and Access to Healthy Food Legislation Database. Date
accessed August 11, 2009. Available at
http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=13227.*
Percentage of cropland acreage harvested for fruits and
vegetables
The census of agriculture surveys U.S. farms and ranches every five
years for comprehensive agricultural data for every state and county
or county equivalent in the United States. The 2007 census
definition of a farm is any place from which $1,000 or more of
agricultural products were produced and sold, or normally would have
been sold, during the census year. Crop production is measured for
the calendar year, except for avocados, citrus, and olives for which
the production year overlaps the calendar year. Harvested cropland
includes land from which crops were harvested and included land used
to grow short-rotation woody crops and land in orchards, citrus
groves, vineyards, nurseries, and greenhouses. Land from which two
or more crops were harvested was counted only once.
Numerator: National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States
Department of Agriculture. 2007. Census of Agriculture. Available at
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/usv1.pdf.
Table 29 Vegetables, page 508; Table 32 Fruits (excluding nuts),
page 543; Table 33 Berries, page 560
Denominator: National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States
Department of Agriculture. 2007. Census of Agriculture.
Available at
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/usv1.pdf.
Table 1, State Summary Highlights: 2007, page 276. Harvested
cropland in acres, state-specific total acres.
State-level Food policy council
State councils designated as yes have a named point of contact on
the Community Food Security Coalition website as of the accessed
date. Those listed include councils of various types, with different
approaches and at various stages of development. Regional or
multi-state councils are not designated in this source.
Community Food Security Coalition. 2008. Food Policy Council
Program. Date accessed August 28, 2009. Available at
http://www.foodsecurity.org/FPC/council.html.*
Number of Local Food policy councils
Local councils designated as yes have a named point of contact on
the Community Food Security Coalition website as of the accessed
date. Those listed include councils of various types, with different
approaches and at various stages of development.
Community Food Security Coalition. 2008. Food Policy Council
Program. Date accessed August 28, 2009. Available at
http://www.foodsecurity.org/FPC/council.html.*
*References to ‘states' in the State Indicator Report on Fruits
and Vegetables, 2009 when applicable include the District of
Columbia as well as the 50 states.
1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department
of Agriculture. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2005. 6th
Edition, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, January
2005.
http://www.health.gov/DietaryGuidelines/dga2005/document/html/chapter5.htm.
Accessed August 28, 2009.
2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People
2010. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,
November 2000.
http://www.healthypeople.gov/Document/HTML/Volume2/19Nutrition.htm.
Accessed August 28, 2009.
3. Keener, D, Goodman, K, Lowry, A, Zaro, S, Kettel Khan, L (2009).
Recommended community strategies and measurements to prevent obesity
in the United States: Implementation and measurement guide. Atlanta,
GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention.
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/downloads/community_strategies_guide.pdf
4. IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2009. Local Government Actions to
Prevent Childhood Obesity. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press.
http://www.iom.edu/Object.File/Master/72/800/local%20govts%20obesity%20report%20brief%20FINAL%20for%20web.pdf*
5. IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2007. Nutrition Standards for Foods
in Schools: Leading the Way Toward Healthier Youth. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press.
6. Seymour JD, Fenley MA, Yaroch AL, Khan LK, Serdula M. Fruit and
vegetable environment, policy, and pricing workshop: introduction to
the conference proceedings. Prev Med 2004;39(2)S71–4.
7. Story M, Kaphingst KM, Robinson-O'Brien R, Glanz K. Creating
healthy food and eating environments: policy and environmental
approaches. Annu Rev Public Health 2008;29:253–72.
8. Larson MI, Story M, Nelson MC. Neighborhood environments
disparities in access to healthy foods in the U.S. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine 2009;36(1):74–81..
9. United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research
Service. Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Measuring and
Understanding Food Deserts and Their Consequences. 2009. Available
at
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AP/AP036/AP036.pdf.
Accessed August 28, 2009.
10. United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Marketing
Service. Available at
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/farmersmarkets. Accessed August
28, 2009.
11. Herman DR, Harrison GG, Afifi AA, Jenks E. Effect of a targeted
subsidy on intake of fruits and vegetables among low-income women In
the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Children. Am J Public Health 2008;98(1):98–105.
12. Joshi A, Azuma AM, Feenstra G. Do Farm-to-School Programs Make
a Difference? Findings and Future Research Need. Journal of
Hunger & Environmental Nutrition 2008;3:(2)229–246.
13. Joshi A, Azuma AM. Bearing Fruit: Farm to School Program
Evaluation Resources and Recommendations, Available at
http://departments.oxy.edu/uepi/cfj/bearingfruit.htm.* Accessed
August 28, 2009.
14. Sobal J, Khan LK, Bisogni C. A conceptual model of the food and
nutrition system. Soc Sci Med 1998;47(7):853–63.
|