Exploring dimensions of social capital in relation to healthy eating behaviours in the US rural south.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined relationships between dimensions of social capital (SC) (social trust, network diversity, social reciprocity and civic engagement) and fruit, vegetable, and sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption among rural adults. Potential moderators (neighbourhood rurality, food security, gender and race/ethnicity) were explored to develop a more nuanced understanding of the SC-healthy eating relationship. DESIGN: Data were from a 2019 mailed population-based survey evaluating an eleven-county initiative to address health equity. Participants self-reported health behaviours, access to health-promoting resources and demographics. Logistic regression models were used to analyse relationships between predictors, outcomes and moderators. SETTING: Five rural counties, Georgia, USA. PARTICIPANTS: 1120 participants. RESULTS: Among participants who lived in the country (as opposed to in town), greater network diversity was associated with consuming ≥ 3 servings of fruit (OR = 1·08; 95 % CI 1·01, 1·17, P = 0·029), yet among participants who lived in town, greater civic engagement was associated with consuming ≥ three servings of fruit (OR = 1·36; 95 % CI 1·11, 1·65, P = 0·003). Both food-secure and food-insecure participants with greater social reciprocity had lower odds of consuming 0 SSB (OR = 0·92; 95 % CI 0·86, 0·98, P = 0·014, OR = 0·92; 95 % CI 0·86, 0·99, P = 0·037, respectively). Men with greater social trust were more likely to consume 0 SSB (OR = 1·09; 95 % CI 1·01, 1·18, P = 0·038), and Whites with greater network diversity were more likely to meet daily vegetable recommendations (OR = 1·10; 95 % CI 1·01, 1·19, P = 0·028). CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide a basis for future qualitative research on potential mechanisms through which SC and related social factors influence healthy eating in rural communities.

"Maybe it's still good?" A qualitative study of factors influencing food waste and application of the E.P.A. Food recovery hierarchy in U.S. supermarkets.

About 31% of post-harvest food available for human consumption is lost or wasted annually in the United States. Roughly one third (43 billion lbs.) of food loss occurs in grocery and other retail food stores. Supermarkets engage in food waste reduction, rescue, and recycling strategies, but little is known about frontline workers' and department managers' perspectives on food discards and strategies to limit waste. We aimed to increase understanding of factors influencing grocery retail employees' food waste decision-making at the store level, and of the perspectives of those frontline supermarket workers and managers responsible for food waste prevention and mitigation. We conducted 20 qualitative semi-structured interviews and used thematic analysis to explore how grocery workers and managers view food waste decision drivers, and how these impact the feasibility and effectiveness of waste reduction and food rescue and recycling in their stores. Workers and managers report personalized discard decision-making and confusion between quality and safety indicators. Interviewees described in-store policies, resources and trainings as lacking or inconsistently applied, leading to variability in food waste prevention, rescue, and recycling. Overall, interview participants considered waste reduction strategies that rescue profitable goods more feasible than other food rescue and recycling efforts like donation and composting. Workers' and managers' perceptions of in-store food waste drivers and views on extant food waste prevention and mitigation efforts point to areas for future research and intervention.