Rossi Kristen, Gombi Vaca Maria F, Schwartz Marlene B, Caspi Caitlin
Department of Allied Health Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, United States.
Rudd Center for Food Policy and Health, University of Connecticut, Hartford, CT, United States.
Front Public Health. 2025 Aug 29;13:1613200. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1613200. eCollection 2025.
Consumption of ultra-processed foods has been linked with poor health outcomes. Using the Nova food classification system to measure the level of food processing, this study assessed whether foods selected by food pantry clients were more favorable following a behavioral economics food pantry intervention.
The study analyzed secondary data from a group-randomized evaluation in 11 Minnesota food pantries. Food items selected by 187 clients (85 intervention, 102 control) were categorized according to Nova in one of four categories: (1) unprocessed/minimally processed, (2) culinary ingredients, (3) processed foods, or (4) ultra-processed foods. In each client cart, the energy share (% of total calories) of each Nova food category was calculated. Adjusted mixed linear models were used to test the post-intervention differences in the energy share of Nova food categories between intervention conditions.
On average, unprocessed/minimally processed foods represented 34.6% of the energy share among carts in the intervention group and 33.8% among client carts in the control group. Ultra-processed foods represented 43.5 and 41.1% of the foods in the control and intervention groups, respectively. In the adjusted models, no statistically significant differences in the energy share of Nova categories were found between foods selected by clients in the pantries in the two conditions.
Neither a reduction in client selection of ultra-processed foods nor an increase in unprocessed/minimally processed foods were among the benefits of the intervention. Future research should explore interventions targeting Nova food categories and subgroups to improve the nutritional quality of foods in food pantries.
超加工食品的消费与不良健康结果有关。本研究使用诺瓦食品分类系统来衡量食品加工水平,评估了在行为经济学食品救济站干预后,食品救济站客户所选择的食品是否更有利于健康。
该研究分析了明尼苏达州11个食品救济站的组群随机评估的二手数据。187名客户(85名干预组,102名对照组)所选的食品根据诺瓦分类系统分为四类:(1)未加工/最少加工食品,(2)烹饪原料,(3)加工食品,或(4)超加工食品。在每个客户的购物车中,计算每个诺瓦食品类别的能量占比(占总卡路里的百分比)。使用调整后的混合线性模型来测试干预条件之间诺瓦食品类别能量占比的干预后差异。
平均而言,未加工/最少加工食品在干预组购物车中的能量占比为34.6%,在对照组客户购物车中的能量占比为33.8%。超加工食品在对照组和干预组食品中分别占43.5%和41.1%。在调整后的模型中,两种情况下食品救济站客户所选食品的诺瓦类别能量占比没有统计学上的显著差异。
减少客户对超加工食品的选择以及增加未加工/最少加工食品的选择均不是干预的益处。未来的研究应探索针对诺瓦食品类别和亚组的干预措施,以提高食品救济站食品的营养质量。