Comparing shopper characteristics by online grocery ordering use among households in low-income communities in Maine.

OBJECTIVE: Online grocery shopping could improve access to healthy food, but it may not be equally accessible to all populations - especially those at higher risk for food insecurity. The current study aimed to compare the socio-demographic characteristics of families who ordered groceries online v. those who only shopped in-store. DESIGN: We analysed enrollment survey and 44 weeks of individually linked grocery transaction data. We used univariate χ2 and t-tests and logistic regression to assess differences in socio-demographic characteristics between households that only shopped in-store and those that shopped online with curbside pickup (online only or online and in-store). SETTING: Two Maine supermarkets. PARTICIPANTS: 863 parents or caregivers of children under 18 years old enrolled in two fruit and vegetable incentive trials. RESULTS: Participants had a total of 32 757 transactions. In univariate assessments, online shoppers had higher incomes (P < 0 0001), were less likely to participate in Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP; P < 0 0001) and were more likely to be female (P = 0·04). Most online shoppers were 30-39 years old, and few were 50 years or older (P = 0·003). After controlling for age, gender, race/ethnicity, number of children, number of adults, income and SNAP participation, female primary shoppers (OR = 2·75, P = 0·003), number of children (OR = 1·27, P = 0·04) and income (OR = 3·91 for 186-300 % federal poverty line (FPL) and OR = 6·92 for >300 % FPL, P < 0·0001) were significantly associated with likelihood of shopping online. CONCLUSIONS: In the current study of Maine families, low-income shoppers were significantly less likely to utilise online grocery ordering with curbside pickup. Future studies could focus on elucidating barriers and developing strategies to improve access.

U.S. Policies Addressing Ultraprocessed Foods, 1980-2022.

INTRODUCTION: Ultraprocessed foods are industrial formulations manufactured from substances derived from foods and industrially-produced ingredients and additives. Few countries' policies directly regulate ultraprocessed food, but several countries' dietary guidelines suggest eating less ultraprocessed food. The U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans do not mention the ultraprocessed food category, but the 2025-2030 Advisory Committee is tasked with evaluating research related to ultraprocessed food consumption. The U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans are used for U.S. food and nutrition policies. It is unknown the extent that federal and state policymakers have already proposed or passed policies addressing ultraprocessed foods. METHODS: Research was conducted using Lexis+ into federal and state statutes, bills, resolutions, regulations, and proposed rules, and Congressional Research Services reports to identify policymaking related to highly processed and ultraprocessed food from January 1980 through February 2023. RESULTS: This research identified 25 policy actions (8 federal, 17 state) proposed or passed between 1983 and 2022 (22 of them, 2011-2022). The most common topic area related to children's nutrition (n=14), and a prevalent theme related to food prices. Only 1 policy defined ultraprocessed food, and 3 policies sought to address the broader food environment by providing incentives to small retailers to stock healthy foods. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing ultraprocessed food in U.S. policy activity is quite recent, with few policies directly targeting ultraprocessed foods but rather discussing them as contrary to healthy diets. Internationally, ultraprocessed foods have been directly integrated into national dietary guidelines and school food programs. These policies are consistent with emerging U.S. policy activity and may provide information for future policymaking in the U.S.

Trends and Disparities in Diet Quality Among US Adults by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Status.

IMPORTANCE: Unhealthful diet is a top contributor to chronic diseases in the United States. There are growing concerns about disparities in diet among US adults, especially for those who participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the largest federal food assistance program. It remains unclear how these disparities may have changed over time. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether disparities in key food groups and nutrients according to participation and eligibility for SNAP have persisted, improved, or worsened over time among US adults. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This survey study examined a nationally representative sample of 38 696 adults aged 20 years or older: 6162 SNAP participants, 6692 income-eligible nonparticipants, and 25 842 higher-income individuals from 8 cycles of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1999-2014). Data analysis was conducted between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2017. EXPOSURES: Survey-weighted, energy-adjusted diet by SNAP participation status. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Mean diet scores and proportions of US adults meeting poor, intermediate, or ideal diet scores based on the American Heart Association (AHA) 2020 Strategic Impact Goals for diet, including 8 components (fruits and vegetables; whole grains; fish and shellfish; sugar-sweetened beverages; sodium; nuts, seeds, and legumes; processed meats; and saturated fat). RESULTS: The survey included 38 696 respondents (20 062 female [51.9%]; 18 386 non-Hispanic white [69.8%]; mean [SD] age, 46.8 [14.8] years). Participants of SNAP were younger (mean [SD] age, 41.4 [15.6] years) than income-eligible nonparticipants (mean [SD] age, 44.9 [19.6] years) or higher-income individuals (mean [SD] age, 47.8 [13.6] years); more likely to be female (3552 of 6162 [58.6%] vs 3504 of 6692 [54.8%] and 13 006 of 25 842 [50.4%], respectively); and less likely to be non-Hispanic white (2062 of 6162 [48.2%] vs 2594 of 6692 [56.0%] and 13 712 of 25 842 [75.8%], respectively). From surveys conducted in 2003 and 2004 to those conducted in 2013 and 2014, SNAP participants had less improvement in AHA diet scores than both income-eligible nonparticipants and higher-income individuals (change in mean score = 0.57 [95% CI, -2.18 to 0.33] vs 2.56 [95% CI, 0.36-4.76] and 3.84 [95% CI, 2.39-5.29], respectively; P = .04 for interaction). Disparities persisted for most foods and nutrients and worsened for processed meats, added sugars, and nuts and seeds. In 2013 to 2014, a higher proportion of SNAP participants had poor diet scores compared with income-eligible nonparticipants and higher-income individuals (461 of 950 [53.5%] vs 247 of 690 [38.0%] and 773 of 2797 [28.7%]; P < .001 for difference), and a lower proportion had intermediate diet scores (477 of 950 [45.3%] vs 428 of 690 [59.8%] and 1933 of 2797 [68.7%]; P < .001 for difference). The proportion of participants with ideal diet scores was low in all 3 groups (12 of 950 [1.3%] vs 15 of 690 [2.2%] and 91 of 2797 [2.6%]; P = .26 for difference). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Dietary disparities persisted or worsened for most dietary components among US adults. Despite improvement in some dietary components, SNAP participants still do not meet the AHA goals for a healthful diet.

Tobacco control in state comprehensive cancer control plans: opportunities for decreasing tobacco-related disease.

INTRODUCTION: Comprehensive cancer control plans published by state, tribal, and territorial health agencies present an excellent opportunity to help prevent tobacco-related and other cancers. In this analysis, we sought to estimate the extent to which tobacco control activities outlined in state comprehensive cancer control plans incorporated the tobacco control recommendations presented by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs-August 1999 (Best Practices) and The Guide to Community Preventive Services: Tobacco Use Prevention and Control (The Guide). METHODS: We analyzed the 39 available state comprehensive cancer control plans to determine which of the CDC tobacco control recommendations were incorporated. We then summarized these data across the 39 states. RESULTS: The 39 states incorporated a mean of 5.6 recommendations from Best Practices (SD, 2.8; range, 0-9) and 3.9 recommendations from The Guide (SD, 1.9; range, 0-6). Nearly one-half of state plans (48.7%) addressed funding for tobacco control; of these, 52.6% (25.6% of total) delineated a specific, measurable goal for funding. CONCLUSION: The extent to which tobacco control is addressed in state comprehensive cancer control plans varies widely. Our analysis revealed opportunities for states to improve compliance with CDC's tobacco-related recommendations for cancer control.