Nutrition Policy Institute, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, Oakland, CA 94607, USA.
Nutrients. 2022 Apr 28;14(9):1842. doi: 10.3390/nu14091842.
This cross-sectional study was part of a larger evaluation of a fruit and vegetable (FV) incentive program for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants in California. We examined the price differences in FV to explore whether these could help explain a previously observed lack of effect of the incentive program on FV consumption. Differences by type (organic/no-spray or conventional), among a convenience sample of farmers' markets ( = 11) and nearby supermarkets ( = 7), were assessed using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests adjusting for clustering by market. We calculated the cost of market baskets comprising recommended FV servings for a household using median prices to consider the implications of FV price differences for SNAP shoppers who use financial incentives for FV. We found that farmers' markets primarily offered organic FV while supermarkets primarily offered conventionally grown FV. Farmers' market prices tended to be lower than supermarkets for organic FV but higher for conventional FV. Compared to supermarkets, the market basket composed only of organic FV cost USD 16.34 less at farmers' markets, whereas a basket comprised of a mix of conventionally and organically grown FV cost USD 3.68 more. These differences warrant further exploration; FV price and type should be considered in studies aimed at understanding the impact of SNAP financial incentive programs.
本横断面研究是对加利福尼亚州补充营养援助计划 (SNAP) 参与者水果和蔬菜 (FV) 激励计划进行更广泛评估的一部分。我们研究了 FV 的价格差异,以探讨这些差异是否可以帮助解释激励计划对 FV 消费缺乏影响的原因。在农贸市场(n = 11)和附近超市(n = 7)的便利样本中,通过市场聚类调整的 Wilcoxon 秩和检验评估了不同类型(有机/无喷雾或常规)之间的差异。我们使用中位数价格计算了包含推荐 FV 份量的家庭用市场篮子的成本,以考虑 FV 价格差异对使用 FV 经济激励的 SNAP 购物者的影响。我们发现,农贸市场主要提供有机 FV,而超市主要提供传统种植的 FV。农贸市场的有机 FV 价格往往低于超市,但传统 FV 的价格高于超市。与超市相比,农贸市场的纯有机 FV 市场篮子成本低 16.34 美元,而由传统和有机种植的 FV 混合组成的篮子成本高 3.68 美元。这些差异值得进一步探讨;在旨在了解 SNAP 经济激励计划影响的研究中,应考虑 FV 的价格和类型。