research on food pantries

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Public Health Nutr
• v.22(9); 2019 Jun
• PMC10260889

A systematic review of food pantry-based interventions in the USA

1 Guangzhou Sport University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510620, People’s Republic of China

2 Department of Kinesiology and Community Health, College of Applied Health Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Champaign, IL 61820, USA

3 Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA

Junjie Wang

4 Department of Physical Education, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, People’s Republic of China

5 Soka University of America, Aliso Viejo, CA, USA

6 Beijing Sport University, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

Emily Loehmer

7 University of Illinois Extension, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA

Jennifer McCaffrey

Food pantries play a critical role in combating food insecurity. The objective of the present work was to systematically review and synthesize scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of food pantry-based interventions in the USA.

Keyword/reference search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library and CINAHL for peer-reviewed articles published until May 2018 that met the following criteria. Setting: food pantry and/or food bank in the USA; study design: randomized controlled trial (RCT) or pre–post study; outcomes: diet-related outcomes (e.g. nutrition knowledge, food choice, food security, diet quality); study subjects: food pantry/bank clients.

Fourteen articles evaluating twelve distinct interventions identified from the keyword/reference search met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Five were RCT and the remaining seven were pre–post studies. All studies found that food pantry-based interventions were effective in improving participants’ diet-related outcomes. In particular, the nutrition education interventions and the client-choice intervention enhanced participants’ nutrition knowledge, cooking skills, food security status and fresh produce intake. The food display intervention helped pantry clients select healthier food items. The diabetes management intervention reduced participants’ glycaemic level.

Conclusions

Food pantry-based interventions were found to be effective in improving participants’ diet-related outcomes. Interventions were modest in scale and usually short in follow-up duration. Future studies are warranted to address the challenges of conducting interventions in food pantries, such as shortage in personnel and resources, to ensure intervention sustainability and long-term effectiveness.

Food insecurity, a lack of reliable access to a sufficient quantity of affordable, nutritious food, impacts over one-eighth of American households, with highest rates among households with incomes below the federal poverty level ( 1 ) . Food insecurity is associated with poor dietary quality and elevated disease risks ( 2 , 3 ) . Food banks in the USA typically operate as warehouses that store a large quantity and variety of food items to be distributed by smaller front-line agencies, called food pantries, which directly serve the end users free of charge. Food banks and food pantries in the USA distribute free grocery items to over 46·5 million Americans in need annually ( 4 , 5 ) . Estimations of food insecurity among pantry clients in the USA range from 50 to 84% ( 5 – 7 ) . Food pantries are often used to augment the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits ( 7 , 8 ) . However, some clients use food pantries as their primary or sole food source, partially due to SNAP ineligibility ( 9 ) . Food pantries play a critical role in addressing the needs of Americans at high risk of food insecurity ( 10 ) .

Besides emergency food provision, food pantries may serve as a natural setting and focal point where additional services can be delivered to improve the diet and health status of the highly vulnerable client population. Previous reviews on food pantries largely focused on cross-sectional studies that assessed the nutritional values of foods provided, service types and quality, and client characteristics (e.g. food security status, dietary intake, malnutrition status, health or disease status, and frequencies or reasons for food pantry use) ( 6 , 11 , 12 ) . One prospective review intends to survey outcomes of disease prevention and management interventions in food pantries, but the review does not assess health behaviour (e.g. food choice) and results have yet to be reported ( 13 ) . The purpose of the present study was to systematically review and synthesize scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of food pantry-based interventions on diet-related outcomes in the USA. We focused on food pantries in the USA because the types and ways of operation of food banks and pantries differ substantially across countries, and they are also subject to different government regulations and serve diverse populations.

The systematic review was reported in accordance with the PRIMSA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement ( 14 ) . Analysis was conducted in May 2018.

Data sources

A keyword search was performed in five electronic bibliographic databases: (i) PubMed; (ii) Web of Science; (iii) Scopus; (iv) Cochrane Library; and (v) Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). The search algorithm included all the following keywords: ‘food pantry’, ‘food pantries’, ‘food bank’, ‘food banks’, ‘food shelf’, ‘food shelves’, ‘food cupboard’, ‘food cupboards’ and ‘food assistance’. The MeSH (medical subject heading) term ‘food assistance’ was included in the PubMed search. All keywords in the PubMed were searched with the ‘(All fields)’ tag, which are processed using Automatic Term Mapping ( 15 ) . The Appendix documents the search algorithm in PubMed as an example. The search function ‘TS=Topic’ was used in Web of Science, which launches a search for topic terms in the fields of title, abstract, keywords and Keywords Plus® ( 16 ) . Titles and abstracts of the articles identified through the keyword search were screened against the study selection criteria. Potentially relevant articles were retrieved for evaluation of the full text. Two reviewers, J.W. and J.S., independently conducted title and abstract screening and identified potentially relevant articles. Inter-rater agreement was assessed using the Cohen’s kappa ( κ =0·82). Discrepancies were resolved through face-to-face discussions between R.A., J.W. and J.S.

A reference list search (i.e. backward reference search) and a cited reference search (i.e. forward reference search) were conducted based on the full-text articles meeting the study selection criteria that were identified from the keyword search. Articles identified from the backward and forward reference search were further screened and evaluated using the same study selection criteria. The reference search was repeated on newly identified articles until no additional relevant article was found.

Study selection

Studies that met all of the following criteria were included in the review. (i) Setting: food pantry and/or food bank in the USA; (ii) exposure: any intervention that addresses food pantry clients’ diet-related outcomes (e.g. nutrition knowledge, food choice, food security, diet quality), except for the daily work routine of a food pantry (i.e. food service) or food bank (i.e. food storage and distribution); (iii) study design: randomized controlled trial (RCT) or pre–post study; (iv) study subjects: food pantry/bank clients; (v) article type: peer-reviewed publication; (vi) time window of search: from the inception of an electronic bibliographic database to 28 May 2018; and (vii) language: article written in English.

Studies that met any of the following criteria were excluded from the review: (i) food pantry/bank-related observational studies; (ii) non-peer-reviewed articles; (iii) articles not written in English; or (iv) letters, editorials, study/review protocols or review articles.

Data extraction

A standardized data extraction form was used to collect the following methodological and outcome variables from each included study: authors, publication year, study design, sample size, age range, percentage of women, duration of follow-up, setting, intervention type, intervention components, measures, outcomes, statistical models, covariates adjusted for and estimated intervention effectiveness.

Data synthesis

A tabulation of extracted data revealed that no two interventions provided a quantitative estimate for the same outcome measure. This precluded a meta-analysis. We narratively summarized the common themes and findings of the included studies.

Study quality assessment

We used the National Institutes of Health’s Quality Assessment Tool of Controlled Intervention Studies to assess the quality of each included study ( 17 ) . This assessment tool rates each study based on fourteen criteria. For each criterion, a score of 1 was assigned if ‘yes’ was the response, whereas a score of 0 was assigned otherwise (i.e. an answer of ‘no’, ‘not applicable’, ‘not reported’ or ‘cannot determine’). Study quality assessment helped measure the strength of scientific evidence but was not used to determine the inclusion of studies.

Figure 1 shows the study selection flowchart. We identified 3051 articles in total by the keyword search, including 610 articles from PubMed, 603 articles from Web of Science, 1412 from Scopus, 354 articles from CINAHL and seventy-two articles from Cochrane Library. After removing duplicates, 2446 unique articles entered title and abstract screening, of which 2436 articles were excluded. The full texts of the remaining ten articles were reviewed against the study selection criteria ( 18 – 27 ) and two studies were excluded because they were other types of interventions (i.e. smoking cessation and medical referral) rather than diet-related interventions ( 19 , 23 ) . A forward and backward reference search was conducted based on these eight articles and six new articles were identified that met the study selection criteria ( 28 – 33 ) . Therefore, these fourteen articles consist of the final pool of studies included in the review ( 18 , 20 – 22 , 24 – 33 ) .

Flowchart showing study selection for the current review of food pantry-based interventions in the USA

Summary of the selected studies

Table 1 summarizes the basic characteristics of the fourteen articles evaluating twelve distinct interventions included in the review. All of them were published within the past 12 years. Seven studies adopted a pre–post study design and five adopted an RCT study design. Sample size varied substantially across studies. Two articles had a sample size between forty and 100 participants ( 20 , 24 ) , seven had a sample size between 100 and 500 participants ( 18 , 22 , 25 , 29 – 32 ) , three articles had a sample size between 500 and 1000 participants ( 21 , 26 , 28 ) , one had a sample size between 1000 and 2000 participants ( 27 ) , whereas the remaining one recruited 375 families ( 33 ) . The mean and median sample sizes were 429 and 236, respectively, except for one study that did not report its sample size in detail ( 33 ) . All studies but one ( 33 ) focused exclusively on adults aged 18 years or above. Among the nine articles that reported sex distribution, women accounted for over half (53–100%) of the analytic sample ( 20 – 22 , 24 , 25 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 32 ) . Four articles recruited participants with diabetes ( 21 , 22 , 25 , 28 ) , three articles recruited participants with hypertension ( 22 , 25 , 28 ) , two articles recruited participants with obesity ( 22 , 25 ) and one article recruited participants with heart disease ( 28 ) .

Basic characteristics of the studies included in the current review of food pantry-based interventions in the USA

RCT, randomized controlled trial; M, male; F, female.

Table 2 summarizes intervention type, intervention components, outcome measures, statistical models and estimated intervention effectiveness on diet-related outcomes. Nutrition education ( n 9) was the most common type of intervention ( 20 , 24 – 28 , 31 – 33 ) , followed by client-choice intervention (called ‘Freshplace’; n 3) ( 22 , 25 , 29 ) , food display intervention ( n 1) ( 18 ) and diabetes management intervention ( n 1) ( 21 ) . The nutrition education interventions included nutrition knowledge dissemination (e.g. healthy eating plate, nutrition facts label use, nutritional implications of different fat types, relationship between nutrition and health, and healthy recipes using fresh produce) ( 20 , 24 – 28 , 31 – 33 ) and cooking demonstrations ( 24 , 27 ) . In the nutrition education interventions, extension staff and local volunteers provided education pertaining to various nutrition-related facts and knowledge (e.g. read food labels, understand different types of fats) for low-income families ( 20 ) . Study investigators created a software to provide messages regarding tailored recipes and food-use tips for pantry clients ( 26 , 33 ) . Food pantry staff were trained about the relationship between nutrition and chronic diseases in order to provide healthier pantry food options ( 28 ) . A food safety-certified graduate assistant served whole-grain dish along with the recipe, informed clients regarding the whole-grain ingredients in the recipe and asked them to make half their grains whole on a daily basis ( 31 ) . In the cooking demonstration, study investigators provided cooking classes for low-income people who would like to try new recipes ( 22 ) . The staff did a cooking demonstration to show how one could prepare healthy recipes using the fresh produce offered and distributed the recipes to pantry clients ( 27 ) . The client-choice intervention (‘Freshplace’) included three major components: (i) participants chose their own foods (primarily fresh and perishable food items); (ii) met with a project manager once per month to develop and track personal goals for becoming food secure and self-sufficient; and (iii) received services tailored to their individual needs (e.g. a six-week cooking workshop) ( 22 , 25 , 29 ) . In the food display intervention, researchers manipulated the display of a targeted product (i.e. protein bar) in a food pantry – placing the product in the front or the back of the category line and presenting the product in its original box or unboxed – with the goal of encouraging the selection of targeted foods through ‘nudges’ but without restricting choices ( 1 ) . In the diabetes management intervention, food pantry clients with diabetes were provided with diabetes-appropriate foods, blood sugar monitoring, primary care referral and self-management support by project personnel who were registered dietitians or certified diabetes educators ( 21 ) .

Intervention components, measures, statistical models and estimated effects on diet and health outcomes of the studies included in the current review of food pantry-based interventions in the USA

HbA1c, glycated Hb.

Two of the fourteen articles adopted one or more biometric outcome measures (e.g. BMI calculated from measured height and weight, glycaemic level and blood pressure) ( 21 , 24 ) , and the remaining twelve articles adopted subjective outcome measures using questionnaires ( n 5) ( 22 , 25 , 28 , 29 , 32 ) , face-to-face or telephone-based interviews ( n 5, including a 24 h dietary recall ( 20 ) ) ( 20 , 26 , 30 , 31 , 33 ) , staff registration ( n 1) ( 27 ) and researchers’ observation ( n 1) ( 18 ) . One of the fourteen articles adopted both biometric and subjective measures (e.g. interview and biometric measures) ( 24 ) . Statistical tests and models applied included the t test, χ 2 test, Cronbach α test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, linear regression, logistic regression, ANOVA, hierarchical linear modelling and generalized linear mixed model.

All twelve studies included in the review found improvements in diet, cooking skills, food security, nutrition knowledge and/or health outcomes attributable to food pantry-based interventions. Among these studies, four reported positive qualitative outcomes linking the food pantry-based intervention to improved cooking skills ( 30 ) , medical care ( 27 ) , nutrition knowledge ( 28 ) and/or dietary quality among study participants ( 33 ) . The remaining eight studies that applied statistical tests and models reported a statistically significant positive association between the food pantry-based intervention and diet quality, cooking skills, food security, nutrition knowledge and/or health outcomes ( 18 , 20 – 22 , 24 – 26 , 29 , 31 , 32 ) . The nutrition education interventions and the client-choice intervention were found to improve participants’ nutrition knowledge, cooking skills, food security status and fresh produce intake ( 20 , 22 , 24 – 29 , 31 – 33 ) . The food display intervention was found to significantly help pantry clients select healthier food items ( 18 ) . The diabetes management intervention was found to significantly help participants better control their glycaemic level ( 21 ) . More specifically, the glycaemic control intervention was more effective among the subset of participants with glycated Hb (HbA1c) ≥7·5% at baseline (i.e. improved by 0·48 percentage points) than those with diabetes in general (i.e. improved by 0·15 percentage points) ( 21 ) . The only study that assessed BMI reported a reduction in BMI among food pantry clients following a six-week cooking programme of plant-based recipes, but the estimated intervention effect was only marginally significant ( P =0·05) ( 24 ) .

Table 3 reports criterion-specific ratings from the study quality assessment. All fourteen articles included in the review clearly stated the research question/objective, clearly specified and defined the study population, recruited subjects from the same or similar populations during the same time period, pre-specified and uniformly applied inclusion and exclusion criteria to all participants, had a reasonably long follow-up period that was sufficient for changes in outcomes to be observed, and implemented valid and reliable exposure and outcome measures. On the other hand, none of them examined the dose–response effect of food pantry-based interventions, and few justified their sample size and/or conducted a power calculation ( 18 , 26 ) . Three articles had the outcome assessors blinded to the exposure status of the participants ( 18 , 21 , 24 ) . Four articles had an attrition rate less than 20% ( 18 , 22 , 25 , 26 ) . Seven articles had a participation rate above 50% ( 22 , 25 , 26 , 29 – 32 ) , assessed the exposures more than once during the study period ( 20 – 22 , 24 – 26 , 29 ) , and measured and statistically adjusted key potential confounding variables for their impact on the relationship between exposures and outcomes ( 18 , 21 , 22 , 26 , 29 , 31 , 32 ) .

Quality assessment * of the studies included in the current review of food pantry-based interventions in the USA

The present study systematically reviewed scientific evidence regarding food pantry-based interventions on participants’ diet-related outcomes in the USA. A total of fourteen articles evaluating twelve distinct interventions were identified. Seven studies adopted a pre–post study design and the remaining five adopted an RCT design. Nine studies focused on nutrition education interventions, one study focused on client-choice intervention, one study focused on food display intervention and the remaining one focused on diabetes management intervention. The review findings demonstrated the feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of these food pantry-based interventions in producing a wide range of positive outcomes such as improved nutrition and health literacy, food security, cooking skills, healthy food choices and intake, diabetes management and access to community resources.

Since the current review was conducted, Seligman et al . (2018) ( 34 ) reported that food banks positively impacted food security, food stability and fruit/vegetable intake among participants. However, no differences in self-management (i.e. depressive symptoms, diabetes distress, self-care, hypoglycaemia and self-efficacy) or HbA1c were identified. On the one hand, findings from Seligman et al . (2018) ( 34 ) help strengthen the evidence regarding the effectiveness of food pantry-based interventions on food security and dietary quality. On the other hand, the null findings contradicted previous positive findings pertaining to improved HbA1c reported in Seligman et al . (2015) ( 21 ) . Future studies should be conducted to assess this discrepancy.

Despite these initially promising results, food pantry-based interventions also face multiple challenges. Largely dependent upon donations and volunteer work, food pantries may have limited resources to provide additional services to clients in need ( 6 , 11 , 12 , 35 ) . Modifications of health behaviours and outcomes often require moderate to intensive interventions that last for a sustained period, but the shortage in personnel and funding may threaten the sustainability and suitability of food pantry-based interventions. Language and cultural barriers, lack of mutual trust and social stigma may prevent clients from fully engaging in the interventions offered at food pantries ( 36 – 40 ) . This situation could be further hampered by food pantry staff’s lack of professional training in intervention delivery. A close collaboration between food pantry and health or other professionals might be the key to a successful and sustainable intervention. A potential partnership for these interventions may exist between food pantries and agencies implementing SNAP-Ed (i.e. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program–Education), who have staff that specialize in assisting organizations serving low-income populations ( 41 ) . SNAP-Ed implementing agencies provide free technical assistance and may help bridge the gap between pantry staff or funding shortages and the desire to implement sustained food pantry interventions.

Food insecurity is merely one of the many challenges food pantry clients face on a daily basis. Malnutrition among food pantry users has been strongly correlated with lack of shelter, access barriers to health care and other social resources, unemployment, physical and mental disability, illiteracy, substance abuse and domestic conflict ( 42 ) . Findings of the current review revealed the potential of food pantry-based interventions in addressing some of the unmet needs of pantry users, especially in the domains of food insecurity and diet quality. The remaining questions are: what else could be done to support this highly vulnerable population, and how could we sustain interventions beyond the conclusion of research funding? Emerging research has explored non-diet related interventions at the food pantry setting, such as smoking cessation and medical referral programmes ( 19 , 23 ) , in an effort to meet other needs of pantry users beyond food access. In view of the close link between food insecurity and health, Feeding America has started to promote partnerships between food pantries/banks and health-care providers ( 43 ) . As a pilot programme, a food pantry in Indiana was established in a health clinic to address the health and nutrition needs of senior patients and the neighbouring community ( 44 ) . Sustainability of an intervention is largely determined by the abundance and stability of financial resources that cover the capital and labour cost of the intervention beyond the phase of scientific research. Demonstrating the intervention effectiveness and cost-effectiveness is of importance, but it alone may not be sufficient to attract and sustain long-term investment. Building a healthy partnership with other non-profit or for-profit institutes could help sustain the intervention in the long run if that is of their common interest. The Walmart Foundation has partnered with local food banks/pantries across the nation in a joint effort to improve the quantity and quality of food in the charitable meal system ( 45 ) . Resource and cost sharing based on partnerships can also play an important role in intervention sustainability. However, two recent studies assessed the network of agencies in local communities that promote healthy eating among populations with limited resources and found that those agencies were only loosely connected ( 46 , 47 ) .

The current review serves as the first attempt to synthesize scientific evidence regarding food pantry-based interventions on participants’ diet-related outcomes in the USA. Several limitations pertaining to the review and the included studies should be noted. The majority of the selected studies used subjective outcome measures (e.g. questionnaires and face-to-face or telephone-based interviews), which are subject to recall error and social desirability bias ( 48 , 49 ) . Half of the articles adopted a pre–post study design. In the absence of randomization, their estimated intervention effects could be prone to confounding bias. Research quality varied substantially across studies. Merely two articles justified their sample size and/or conducted a power calculation. It is possible that some studies were underpowered to detect a statistically significant effect. Only four articles had an attrition rate less than 20%, which could be partially explained by the high turnover rate of food pantry clients and the difficulty in tracking them over time. All articles reported positive findings only, whereas it is possible that non-positive and/or inconclusive results were not reported or published (i.e. presence of publication and/or reporting bias). No two articles provided a quantitative effect estimate for the same type of food pantry-based intervention on the same diet-related outcome, which precluded a meta-analysis. None of the included studies assessed the dose–response effect of food pantry-based interventions. The presence of an optimal intervention intensity remains to be tested. Most studies were small in scale and it remains unclear whether some of those interventions are suitable for scaling up to accommodate the population needs. The current review only included published literature. There might be useful and relevant unpublished studies that were missed by the review. Future work could explore grey literature to see whether it could build on the findings from the current review. Biel et al . (2009) explored a collaboration model between community clinics and local food pantries to jointly address the unmet needs of low-income residents ( 27 ) . However, such partnership is uncommon. Future work should incorporate larger sample sizes and diverse participants, examine the dose–response effect of the intervention, build collaboration with other public or private entities, and design innovative interventions to address other types of unmet needs of food pantry users.

The present work systematically reviewed scientific evidence regarding food pantry-based interventions on clients’ diet-related outcomes. Fourteen articles evaluating twelve distinct interventions were identified from the keyword and reference search, including nine nutrition education interventions, a client-choice intervention, a food display intervention and a diabetes management intervention. All fourteen articles included in the review clearly stated the research question/objective, clearly specified and defined the study population, recruited subjects from the same or similar populations during the same time period, pre-specified and uniformly applied inclusion and exclusion criteria to all participants, had a reasonably long follow-up period that was sufficient for changes in outcomes to be observed, and implemented valid and reliable exposure and outcome measures. On the other hand, none of them examined the dose–response effect of food pantry-based interventions, only two justified their sample size and/or conducted a power calculation, three had the outcome assessors blinded to the exposure status of the participants and four had an attrition rate less than 20%. Findings from these studies demonstrated the feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of food pantry-based interventions in delivering a wide range of positive outcomes including improved nutrition and health literacy, food security, cooking skills, healthy food choices and intake, diabetes management and access to community resources. Future studies are warranted to address the challenges of conducting interventions in food pantries, such as shortage in personnel and resources, to ensure intervention sustainability and long-term effectiveness.

Acknowledgements

Financial support: This research is partially funded by Guangzhou Sport University. Guangzhou Sport University had no role in the design, analysis or writing of this article. Conflict of interest: The authors have no conflict of interest to declare. Authorship: R.A. conceived and designed the study and wrote the manuscript. J.W. and J.L. conducted the literature review and constructed the summary tables and figures. E.L. and J.M. contributed to manuscript drafting. J.S. contributed to manuscript revision. Ethics of human subject participation: This review is non-human subject research and exempt from institutional review board review.

Search algorithm in PubMed

‘food pantry’(All Fields) OR ‘food pantries’(All Fields) OR ‘food bank’(All Fields) OR ‘food assistance’(MeSH) AND (‘humans’(MeSH Terms) AND English(lang))

The Food Bank and Food Pantries Help Food Insecure Participants Maintain Fruit and Vegetable Intake During COVID-19

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences, The University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, United States.
• 2 Food Systems Program, The University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, United States.
• 3 Gund Institute for Environment, The University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, United States.
• PMID: 34422877
• PMCID: PMC8378669
• DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2021.673158

Charitable food services, including food banks and pantries, support individual and households' food access, potentially maintaining food security and diet quality during emergencies. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of food banks and pantries has increased in the US. Here we examine perceptions of food banks and food pantries and their relationship to food security and fruit and vegetable (FV) intake during the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, using a statewide representative survey ( n = 600) of residents of Vermont. The utilization of food pantries was more common among food insecure households and households with children. Among food insecure respondents, those who did not use a food pantry were significantly more likely to report consuming less FV during the pandemic. Further, we find respondents who are food insecure and using a food pantry report consuming more FV since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. We found that respondents who were both food insecure and reported not using a food pantry were significantly more likely to report both a reduction in fruit consumption ( b = -0.58; p = 0.001) and a reduction in vegetable consumption ( b = -0.415; p = 0.012). These results indicate that these services may support food access and one important dimension of diet quality (FV intake) for at-risk populations during emergencies.

Keywords: coronavirus; emergency food assistance; food pantry; food security; nutrition security.

Copyright © 2021 Bertmann, Rogomentich, Belarmino and Niles.

Cornell Chronicle

• Architecture & Design
• Arts & Humanities
• Business, Economics & Entrepreneurship
• Computing & Information Sciences
• Energy, Environment & Sustainability
• Food & Agriculture
• Global Reach
• Health, Nutrition & Medicine
• Law, Government & Public Policy
• Life Sciences & Veterinary Medicine
• Physical Sciences & Engineering
• Social & Behavioral Sciences
• Coronavirus
• News & Events
• Public Engagement
• New York City
• Photos of the Week
• Big Red Sports
• Freedom of Expression
• Student Life
• University Statements
• Around Cornell
• All Stories
• In the News
• Expert Quotes
• Cornellians

Food pantry access worth billions nationally, study finds

By james dean, cornell chronicle.

A research collaboration between Cornell and the U.S. Department of Agriculture offers the first estimates of the economic value contributed by food pantries, and finds it is substantial – worth up to $1,000 annually to participating families and as much as $28 billion nationwide.

The totals underscore food bank systems’ important role in addressing food insecurity, a role that has grown during the pandemic and recent bouts of inflation, said David R. Just , the Susan Eckert Lynch Professor in Science and Business in the Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, part of the Cornell SC Johnson College of Business and the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.

“Food pantries make a huge difference to the households they serve, for many representing a substantial portion of their income,” Just said. “This is important information for policymakers considering support for the national or local food banking system, like tax breaks for food donation, direct program support from USDA or other efforts.”

Just is the co-author of " What is Free Food Worth? A Nonmarket Valuation Approach to Estimating the Welfare Effects of Food Pantry Services ,” published Nov. 9 in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics. The lead author is Anne Byrne, Ph.D. ’21, a research agricultural economist at the USDA’s Economic Research Service . The team has collaborated on multiple investigations of private food assistance.

“Private food assistance, especially food banking, has grown in recent decades,” Byrne said. “These organizations have a unique position within the food system and a specific role in food access because they offer quick relief in the form of free groceries to a wide variety of people, typically with minimal administrative hurdles.”

Food banks and pantries served 51 million people in 2021, according to the nonprofit Feeding America . Despite their importance, the researchers said, their economic value to the individuals and households that they serve hasn’t been estimated using rigorous economic methods.

Determining that value is challenging, the researchers said, since food pantries provide food and services at no cost. In addition, the market value of food may not accurately capture its value to people who can’t afford to access markets.

Byrne and Just thought they could get at the question using travel costs, a novel application of a methodology long used to value assets like national parks – where the cost of visiting isn’t primarily an entry fee – based on costs incurred to make the trip. They calculated the cost of travel to and from food pantries as a measure of households’ “willingness to pay” for the food, considering the distance, duration and frequency of their trips.

“We know they would be willing to give up at least this amount for the food they obtain, which enables us to identify demand in terms of price – travel costs – and quantity – visits,” Just said.

The scholars analyzed 13 years of data (2005-17) from a northern Colorado food bank that in 2017 served 10% of Larimer County residents at locations in Fort Collins and Loveland.

The data set included millions of pantry visits representing about 45,000 households – a population with lower incomes and more racial and ethnic minorities than the county overall, according to census data. To calculate travel costs, the researchers used Google maps for walking and driving distances and times, AAA data for vehicle costs, and reported incomes or the Colorado minimum wage to determine the opportunity cost of the time trips required.

The result was an estimated value to families of $40 to $60 per trip to a food pantry, and of $600 to $1,000 per year based on typical annual visit frequencies, with values increasing or decreasing with travel costs.

Extrapolated nationally – based on 389 million visits reported by Feeding America’s 2014 Hunger in America Study – the first-of-their-kind estimates confirm that “food bank services collectively represent a sizeable share of the food landscape,” the researchers wrote. Their estimated value of $19 to $28 billion is more than double the sales by farmers markets in 2020, and a significant fraction of federal food stamp (SNAP) benefits that year worth $74.2 billion, according to the research.

“Without such an estimate it is difficult to know whether food pantries are a worthwhile investment from a public policy perspective,” Just said. “Given the great number of families touched by these services and the significant investment and volunteer hours given, it is important to document and measure the value they are contributing to our economy.”

Media Contact

Lindsey knewstub.

Get Cornell news delivered right to your inbox.

You might also like

Gallery Heading

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 17 March 2022

A descriptive analysis of food pantries in twelve American states: hours of operation, faith-based affiliation, and location

• Natalie D. Riediger   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8736-9446 1 , 2 ,
• Lindsey Dahl 1 , 3 ,
• Rajeshwari A. Biradar 4 , 5 ,
• Adriana N. Mudryj 1 &
• Mahmoud Torabi 2  

BMC Public Health volume  22 , Article number:  525 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

4672 Accesses

6 Citations

21 Altmetric

Metrics details

Our objectives were to describe both the development, and content, of a charitable food dataset that includes geographic information for food pantries in 12 American states.

Food pantries were identified from the foodpantries.org website for 12 states, which were linked to state-, county-, and census-level demographic information. The publicly available 2015 Food Access Research Atlas and the 2010 US Census of Population and Housing were used to obtain demographic information of each study state. We conducted a descriptive analysis and chi-square tests were used to test for differences in patterns of food pantries according to various factors.

We identified 3777 food pantries in 12 US states, providing an estimated 4.84 food pantries per 100,000 people, but ranged from 2.60 to 7.76 within individual states. The majority of counties (61.2%) had at least one food pantry. In contrast, only 15.7% of all census tracts in the study states had at least one food pantry. A higher proportion of urban census tracts had food pantries compared to rural tracts. We identified 2388 (63.2%) as being faith-based food pantries. More than a third (34.4%) of food pantries did not have information on their days of operation available. Among the food pantries displaying days of operation, 78.1% were open at least once per week. Only 13.6% of food pantries were open ≤1 day per month.

Conclusions

The dataset developed in this study may be linked to food access and food environment data to further examine associations between food pantries and other aspects of the consumer food system (e.g. food deserts) and population health from a systems perspective. Additional linkage with the U.S. Religion Census Data may be useful to examine associations between church communities and the spatial distribution of food pantries.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Food insecurity refers to the inability to access sufficient, safe, and nutritious food to meet the dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life [ 1 ]. The prevalence of household food insecurity in 2019 in the United States was estimated at 10.5% [ 2 ], which has only been exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic [ 3 ]. Given the significant number of food insecure households and food insecurity’s strong associations with poor health outcomes [ 4 , 5 , 6 ], particularly diabetes [ 7 , 8 ], and increased health care costs [ 9 ], food insecurity is a major public health concern. While food insecurity is inextricably linked to low income, food-based interventions at the municipal-level, such as food pantries have been thrust to the forefront in an attempt to alleviate the problem [ 10 ]. Food banks refer to charitable food assistance organizations that rely upon food and monetary donations in order to either distribute food to smaller charities that serve food insecure populations, or to provide a direct grocery service to clients, sometimes called food pantries or food shelves [ 11 ].

The inception of charitable food organizations in the 1960s was intended to serve as emergency food aid in response to short-term food insecurity. By the 1990’s, emergency food aid had grown to such an extent that in Detroit, Michigan there were more food banks, pantries, and soup kitchens ( N  = 100) than supermarkets and large grocery stores ( N  = 96) [ 12 ]. Despite the rise in charitable food, there is a lack of evidence supporting their effectiveness in addressing the main issue of food insecurity. At the individual-level, the charitable food system has been shown to contribute to stigma and shame among patrons [ 13 , 14 , 15 ], offer poor nutritional value [ 11 , 16 ], provide insufficient and inconsistent food supply [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ], consist of limited food choice and variety [ 16 ], and exacerbate pre-existing chronic health conditions [ 11 , 18 , 19 ]. Furthermore, “pantries spring up wherever someone is moved to create them” [ 20 ] (p221). In this way, the geographical distribution of food pantries may not follow any systematic pattern or necessarily reflect need. Many food pantries operate out of churches and volunteers are often motivated to volunteer because of their religious commitments. Given these circumstances and undercurrents, faith is an important and dynamic element of the charitable food system. However, faith-based affiliations within the current charitable food system is unknown and likely context-specific.

While the experiences of clients of the charitable food system have been explored qualitatively [ 13 , 21 , 22 ], and there is considerable individual-level data to evaluate food security programs, there has been little, if any, ecological data to describe the charitable food system. The charitable food system is one component, or sub-system, of the larger consumer food system, as well as part of the broader social and economic system. The scope of the charitable food system is related to overall food security, food security programs (i.e., food stamps), both smaller and larger grocery stores, and religious communities (i.e., churches), as some examples. Taken together, all these sub-systems also influence health outcomes (e.g., diabetes). An ecological analysis applying systems theory [ 23 ] as a conceptual framework to examine the consumer food system could provide important policy-relevant evidence regarding the charitable food system, as well as publicly-funded food security programs, food security, and health. Ecological studies are especially useful when the implications for intervention are at the population- or systems-level.

From a systems theory perspective [ 24 , 25 ], we understand that if charitable food makes up an increasing component of the consumer food system, other aspects of the food or economic systems counterbalance for this increase. For example, the reliance on the charitable food sector has reduced the pressure on governments to improving income security through social programs [ 26 , 27 ], and may further reduce participation in other public food programs. Similarly, applying a systems perspective, reductions in churches or declining participation in faith-based communities [ 28 , 29 ] may diminish charitable food assistance. The increasing involvement of the corporate food sector through donations (supported by governmental tax programs) may further aggravate food system inequality by contributing to the dissolution of smaller grocers and the preponderance of “food deserts” or areas devoid of fresh and whole foods in disadvantaged neighborhoods [ 30 ]. Smaller businesses may be unable to provide food at a comparable price to either larger grocery stores or the charitable sector, which is free. The interconnectedness of the food system is further displayed through the food systems impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic [ 3 ]. In this way, systems theory may be useful for exploring structural issues and inequities within consumer food systems, including charitable food systems as a sub-system.

In order to empirically examine the relationships amongst the consumer food sub-systems for future research, we have created a Charitable Food Dataset (CFD), which lists and documents characteristics of charitable food organizations in select states in the U.S. The objectives of this paper are to (1) describe the developed dataset and (2) describe the charitable food system according to days of operation, faith-based affiliation, and rural/urban location. This methods paper describes a dataset that can be linked to other publicly available datasets to further explore relationships within the food system.

Data sources

The CFD was constructed primarily from the publicly available charitable food organization directory at foodpantries.org [ 31 ]. The website is not affiliated with any governmental agency or non-profit organization, and manually collects information on food pantries, soup kitchens and non-profit organizations (collectively referred to as ‘food pantries’ hereinafter) in the 50 US states and the District of Columbia. Food pantries were identified in 12 study states (Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee and West Virginia) purposefully selected to achieve variation in the sample based on state prevalence of food security listed in the 2018 Food Environment Atlas, the inclusion of both rural and urban areas, as well as the number of food pantries in each state. The CFD contains the name, address, and hours/days of operation of each food pantry in the directory, which were entered into Microsoft Excel. The data were cleaned and any entries that shared the same name and/or address were considered duplicates and removed. The CFD data were collected between February 2017 and July 2018, and are stored in an open source repository [ 32 ].

Census tract numbers for each food pantry in the study states were obtained using the United States Census Bureau’s (USCB) Geocoder address look-up tool [ 33 ] and the one-line address associated with each food pantry. If census tracts were not found using the Geocoder, the food pantry was geographically located using Google Maps [ 34 ] and cross-referenced with the corresponding USCB Census Tract Reference Map [ 35 ]. The reference maps are county-based and display the census tract numbers for each delineated tract area within that county for the 2010 Census, which was the latest census completed in the US.

The publicly available 2015 Food Access Research Atlas [ 36 ] and the 2010 US Census of Population and Housing [ 37 ] were also used to obtain demographic information of each study state. The Food Access Research Atlas is maintained by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and contains food access indicators at the census-tract level.

The Food Access Research Atlas includes the 2010 populations of each census tract based on the estimates from the 2010 US Census. These estimates were used to estimate the populations for each study state. The Atlas also includes an indicator variable for urban or rural census tracts based on whether the geographic centroid of the census tract is in an area with more than 2500 people as determined by the 2010 block-level population data and aerially allocated to ½ kilometre square grids [ 38 ]. This indicator variable was used to calculate the populations and the number of census tracts stratified by urban and rural census areas for each state. The number of counties per state was determined by converting the census tract numbers provided in the Atlas into county Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) and removing any duplicates. Finally, the 2010 Census was used to obtain the square mile of land area in each state as a measure of its geographic size.

A variable indicating whether a food pantry was affiliated with a Judeo-Christian organization was created by reviewing each food pantry name in the CFD for Judeo-Christian terms, for example, “Saint” or “church” (Table  1 ). These terms were subjectively selected based on their likelihood of being recognized as Judeo-Christian terms by someone who was using the foodpantries.org directory. We refer to these food pantries as faith-based for the remainder of the paper. Lastly, the days of operation of food pantries contained in the CFD varied widely ranging from 4 days per year to 5 days per week. Therefore, a variable was created by collapsing the days of operation into 5 categories: (1) ≤1 day per month; (2) 2–3 days per month; (3) once per week; (4) 2–3 days per week; (5) ≥4 days per week.

Descriptive statistics were generated for the study states, including population counts, number of counties, number of census tracts, proportion of urban and rural census tracts, and land area. Population counts for each state are from 2018, with the most recent estimates calculated from the 2010 Census. The urban and rural populations were determined by using the 2010 Census, which were provided at the census-tract level in the Food Access Research Atlas.

Descriptive analyses, using the state demographic information, were conducted for the food pantries in the CFD. First, the number of food pantries in each state was counted and the proportions that were in urban and rural census tracts were calculated. Second, the number of food pantries per 100,000 state population stratified by urban and rural tracts, as well as the number of food pantries per 1000 square miles of state land area, were determined. Third, the numbers of counties, census tracts, urban tracts, and rural tracts that had at least one food pantry were calculated, and the proportions within urban compared to rural census tracts were tested using chi-square tests. Fourth, the number and proportion of food pantries per state that were faith-based were calculated, and then stratified by urban and rural areas. The proportion of faith-based pantries in urban areas was compared with the proportion in rural areas using chi-square tests. Lastly, the frequencies within each category of days of operation were calculated. Chi-square tests were used to explore differences in the distributions of faith-based and non-faith-based food pantries, and of urban and rural food pantries, in the days of operation categories. The level of significance was set at 0.05 for all statistical tests, which were carried out using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 23.

The selected states represent a total of 1112 counties and 19,167 census tracts (Table  2 ). The average state population was 6,507,685 (SD = 3,642,347) and ranged from 1,852,994 to 12,830,632 people. The majority of census tracts were considered to be located in urban areas (69.1%), which represented approximately two thirds of the total population in the study states. The average state land area was 47,796 square miles (SD = 14,403) with a minimum of 24,038 and a maximum of 81,759 square miles.

We identified 3923 food pantries using the foodpantries.org directory, with 47 of the entries requiring the USCB reference maps to locate their census tract numbers. We removed 146 duplicate food pantry entries, resulting in 3777 individual food pantries in the CFD with three quarters of them located in urban census tracts (Table  3 ). The number of food pantries per 100,000 people in the overall sample was 4.84, ranging from 2.60 to 7.76 within the individual states. There were 5.31 food pantries per 100,000 in urban census tracts, and 3.79 in rural census tracts, and there were 6.59 food pantries per 1000 square miles of land area. The majority of counties (61.2%) had at least one food pantry. In contrast, only 15.7% of all census tracts in the study states had at least one food pantry (Table  4 ). Significantly more urban census tracts had a food pantry compared to rural census tracts (16.8% vs. 13.3%; p  < .00001). We identified 2388 (63.2%) as being faith-based food pantries, with a significantly higher proportion of urban food pantries being faith-based compared to rural food pantries (65.1% vs. 57.4%, p  < .0001; Table  5 ).

More than a third (34.4%) of food pantries did not have information on their days of operation available. The proportion of faith-based versus non-faith based food pantries that did not provide this information was not significantly different (35.4% vs. 32.7%; p  = 0.093), as was the case for urban and rural food pantries (33.9% vs. 36.2%; p  = 0.202). Among the food pantries displaying days of operation, 52.9% were open at least 2 days per week, while 78.1% were open at least once per week (Table  6 ). Only 13.6% of food pantries were open ≤1 day per month. Significant relationships existed between the days open categories and whether the food pantry was faith-based ( p  < .00001), or was located in an urban or rural area ( p  = 0.043). A higher proportion of faith-based and rural food pantries fell into the less frequently open categories, and had a lower proportion in the more frequently open categories as compared to non-faith-based food pantries and urban food pantries, respectively.

In this study, we described the processes involved in developing the CFD, a dataset containing information on food pantries in 12 US states. Descriptive findings indicate approximately three quarters of food pantries are located in urban areas, and almost two thirds were considered to have a faith affiliation, which were also more common in urban versus rural areas. Among pantries with hours of operation posted, 78.1% were open at least 1 day per week, and non-faith-based and urban food pantries were more likely to be open more often. This dataset can be linked via FIPS to a number of publicly available datasets, such as the USDA Food Access Research Atlas, the USDA Food Environment Atlas, and the U.S. Religion Census Data. Through linkage of this CFD with other datasets, a number of research questions can be examined.

Food insecurity affected 10.5% of households in the United States in 2020, and is more common among households with children, and Black or non-Hispanic householders [ 39 ]. Given the prevalence of food insecurity, efforts to mitigate food insecurity have the capacity to greatly improve population health at multiple levels – national, state, county, household, and individual. The role of food assistance programs has increased as a result of the decline of non-food social programs. The largest publicly-funded food assistance program in the US is SNAP, which provided ‘food stamp’ benefits to more than 44 million people in 2016 [ 40 ]. However, many eligible people do not participate in the program, and among those who do, approximately half of them continue to report being food insecure [ 41 ]. Charitable food assistance programs or food banks, which were initially established to provide emergency food supplies, are now considered to supplement the governmental programs in their effort to address food insecurity. In fact, 26.5% of food insecure households and 4.8% of all US households used a food pantry in 2016, representing a 40 and 68% increase from 2001, respectively [ 42 ]. For these reasons, it has become increasingly important to consider the effects of growing charitable food programs on food security and health [ 43 ].

Charitable food organizations, and other community-level initiatives, have the potential to improve individual health through emergency food provision [ 10 ]. However, most health research, media attention, and governmental policy action is disproportionately focused on individual health and exposures, which limits our ability to understand structural drivers of inequality [ 43 , 44 , 45 ]. The USDA’s Food Access Research Atlas and the Food Environment Atlas provide data on food access and environmental indicators at the census tract- and county-levels. By assigning census tract numbers to each food pantry, the CFD is able to link with both atlases, providing an opportunity to explore the structural drivers of health inequality as it relates to food pantries, ‘food deserts’, federal food programs, food insecurity, and health. The CFD is also able to link with US Religion Census data [ 46 ], which contains data on congregations, members, adherents, and attendees, or the population purported to sustain the charitable food sector.

The CFD consists of more food pantries located in urban census tracts compared to rural tracts, reflecting the higher proportion of urban census tracts in the US. The proportion of urban census tracts that had at least one food pantry was 26% higher compared to rural census tracts, and the number of food pantries per urban population was higher than the number per rural population by approximately 40%. This is inconsistent with previously reported data using county-level information from the Map the Meal Gap project and the Hunger in America 2014 survey, which showed that the number of charitable food locations per 1000 people was highest in counties that were considered completely rural according to urban-rural continuum codes [ 47 ]. However, the difference in defining urban and rural areas (i.e., county versus census tract) makes it difficult to compare the findings from the two studies. Given that food insecurity is more prevalent in more populated metropolitan areas compared to nonmetropolitan areas, this may indicate that the food pantries in our dataset are located in areas of greatest need [ 3 ]. However, further research is needed to provide estimates of food insecurity at the census-tract level in order to determine if, in fact, the food pantries are concentrated in the areas that would benefit most from their service.

Charitable food organizations rely heavily on food and monetary donations, and volunteers for their operation. In this way, faith-based or religious organizations, with their ability to engage their communities and which often work for social justice and against inequality, are set up well to provide such services [ 48 ]. In addition, volunteerism in food banks and pantries is often motivated by faith and has an important role in building community [ 20 ]. This may explain the higher proportion of food pantries identified as faith-based in the CFD. The relationship between religion and population health has been extensively explored, and through its ability to provide social capital to communities, especially the most vulnerable communities, illustrate religions’ importance as a social determinant of health [ 49 , 50 ]. However, the variability in the hours of operation of food pantries reflects the volunteer nature of food banking, and is a legitimate concern among clients given that many rely on prolonged use of food pantries [ 4 , 51 ]. This may illustrate the limits of volunteerism in addressing food insecurity, which may be exacerbated as participation in faith-based communities is declining [ 29 ].

The large size and diversity of the CFD is a strength, which provides a foundation for future research exploring the relationship between charitable food and social- and health- related outcomes from a systems perspective. However, there are several limitations of this dataset, and the present study, that must be considered. First, the completeness of the dataset is uncertain. The foodpantries.org directory only contains information regarding updates, corrections, or new food pantries that they receive manually through an online submission form. Some food pantries may not be in the directory, while others may still be included despite closure. We documented 146 directory entries that were considered duplicates because they shared either the same name or address with another entry, which illustrates the limitation in the maintenance of the directory. Furthermore, Feeding America advertises 200 food banks and 60,000 food programs as part of its network; however, foodpantries.org documented only 15,494 food pantries in total in 2018, with 3777 included in the present study. While it is unclear how Feeding America defines a ‘food program’ or whether the 60,000 food programs are a cumulative or a point prevalence, there is clearly a large discrepancy. However, our documented totals for food pantries in Detroit, Michigan are very similar to previous research conducted 4 to 5 years earlier; in addition to foodpantries.org , authors also utilized Local Harvest and several local sources to identify food pantries [ 12 ].

Second, faith-based affiliations were subjectively determined using a collection of common Judeo-Christian terms, which may have led to some misclassification. This approach identified 63.2% of food pantries as Christian faith-based. In her 1998 book, Poppendieck states that “more than 70 percent of the pantries and kitchens affiliated with the Second Harvest Network are sponsored by churches or other religious organizations” and that this is likely an underestimate of “the prevalence of religious orientation” [ 20 ] (p188–89).

Third, while many food pantries are open at least once a week, the quantity of food available per family, their form (pre-packaged food boxes or grocery store style), and the quality of the food provided is unknown. Research suggests that the quality of food available at food pantries does not meet recommendations put in place by health professionals [ 52 ]. Furthermore, we are missing data on days of operation for nearly a third of food pantries.

Fourth, food pantries that are only open a few times a year (i.e., one to four times) are also included in the foodpantries.org directory. These food pantries likely operate only during specific holidays (i.e., Christmas and Thanksgiving); while they can address immediate hunger, they will have limited impact on individual or population-level food insecurity.

Fifth, the proportion of food pantries per population used the most recent population estimates from the US Census that could be stratified by urban and rural census areas, which were estimated 8 years prior to the date that the number of food pantries was determined. The populations increase slightly each year, therefore, the proportions are likely over-estimated. Lastly, the inclusion of only 12 states may limit the generalizability of the data to the United States as a whole, though it is also unlikely that the 12 states selected are completely unique to the country.

To validate the completeness of the dataset, extensive ground truthing exercises and/or comparison to other existing local datasets collected through other means could be completed. This may mitigate some of the limitations previously described. This dataset could be updated through identical methods, and corresponding validation procedures. Ideally, all countries with charitable food systems, particularly those receiving public funds, should be keeping public records or datasets of food pantries to track the distribution of charitable food. Ensuring accurate and complete data is critical to informing policy related to food security.

In conclusion, food pantries in these 12 states are mostly set in urban areas, and affiliated with Judeo-Christian organizations. Their operation hours vary considerably; however, many are open at least once a week. The dataset developed in this study may be linked to food access and food environment data to further explore associations between concentration of food pantries and other aspects of the consumer food system and prevalence of health outcomes, such as diabetes, from a systems perspective. Additional linkage with the U.S. Religion Census Data may be useful to examine associations between church communities and the spatial distribution of food pantries. The number of food pantries has increased since their inception in the 1960s, which may be attributed to ongoing deficiencies in publicly-funded food security and social programs. However, the extent to which the existence of food pantries is dependent on faith-based communities and associated volunteers is concerning given the precarity of operations and declines in church participation [ 29 ]. We must understand the implications of the charitable food system to the larger food and economic system, prior to continuing to grow the charitable sector, either directly with funding, or indirectly through reduced spending to social programs.

Availability of data and materials

All data sources used in this study are publicly available.

Riediger, Natalie, 2022, “Charitable Food Descriptors located in 12 States in America”, https://doi.org/10.34990/FK2/GHL06P , University of Manitoba, V1, UNF:6:B8jxycLhATZEObfR8BW2mQ== [fileUNF].

United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Food Access Research Atlas. 2017. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas/ . Accessed November 10, 2021.

United States Census Bureau. United States Summary: 2010. Population and Housing Unit Counts. 2012. https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/cph-2-1.pdf . Accessed November 11, 2021.

Abbreviations

Charitable Food Dataset

Supplemental Nutrition Access Program

United States Census Bureau

United States Department of Agriculture

Women, Infants, and Children program

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action. 2006. https://www.fao.org/3/W3613E/W3613E00.htm . Accessed 10 Nov 10, 2021.

Coleman-Jensen A, Rabbitt MP, Gregory CA, Singh A. Household food security in the United States in 2019. United States department of Agriculture. September 2020. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/99282/err-275.pdf?v=3785.8

United States Department of Agriculture. COVID-19 Economic Implications for Agriculture, Food, and Rural America: Food and Consumers. https://www.ers.usda.gov/covid-19/food-and-consumers/

Chiu CY, Brooks J, An R. Beyond food insecurity. Br Food J. 2016;118(11):2614–31.

Article   Google Scholar  

Kirk SFL, Kuhle S, McIsaac J-LD, Williams PL, Rossiter M, Ohinmaa A, et al. Food security status among grade 5 students in Nova Scotia, Canada and its association with health outcomes. Public Health Nutr. 2014;18(16):2943–51.

Sharkey JR, Johnson C, Dean WR. Relationship of household food insecurity to health-related quality of life in a large sample of rural and urban women. Women Health. 2011;51(5):442–60.

Strings S, Ranchod YK, Laraia B, Nuru-Jeter A. Race and sex differences in the association between food insecurity and type 2 diabetes. Ethn Dis. 2016;26(3):427–33.

Ray EB, Holben DH, Holcomb JP Jr. Food security status and produce intake behaviors, health status, and diabetes risk among women with children living on a Navajo reservation. J Hunger Envir Nutr. 2012;7(1):91–100.

Tarasuk V, Dachner N, de Oliviera C, Kurdyak P, Cheng J, Gundersen C. Association between household food insecurity and annual health care costs. CMAJ. 2015;187(14):e429–36.

Collins PA, Power EM, Little MH. Municipal-level responses to household food insecurity in Canada: a call for critical, evaluative research. Can J Public Health. 2014;105(2):e138–41.

Bazerghi C, McKay FH, Dunn M. The role of food banks in addressing food insecurity: a systematic review. J Community Health. 2016;41(4):732–40.

Taylor DE, Ard KJ. Food availability and the food desert frame in Detroit: an overview of the City’s food system. Environ Pract. 2015;17:102–33.

Caplan P. Big society or broken society? Food banks in the UK. Anthropol Today. 2016;32(1):5–9.

Bhawra J, Cooke MJ, Hanning R, Gonneville SLH. Community perspectives of food insecurity and obesity: focus groups with caregivers of Métis and off-reserve first nations children. Int J Equity Health. 2015;14(1):96.

van der Horst H, Pascucci S, Bol W. The, “dark side” of food banks? Exploring emotional responses of food bank receivers in the Netherlands. Br Food J. 2014;116(9):1506–20.

Campbell E, Hudson H, Webb K, Crawford PB. Food preferences of users of the emergency food system. J Hunger Environ Nutr. 2011;6(2):179–87.

Power E. Canadian food banks: obscuring the reality of hunger and poverty. Food Ethics. 2011;6:18–20.

Google Scholar  

Ippolito MM, Lyles CR, Prendergast K, Marshall MB, Waxman E, Seligman HK. Food insecurity and diabetes self-management among food pantry clients. Public Health Nutr. 2017;20(1):183–9.

Garthwaite KA, Collins PJ, Bambra C. Food for thought: An ethnographic study of negotiating ill health and food insecurity in a UK food bank. Soc Sci Med. 2015;132:38–44.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Poppendieck J. Sweet charity? Emergency food and the end of entitlement. Penguin; 1999.

Lindberg R, Lawrence M, Caraher M. Kitchens and pantries—helping or hindering? The perspectives of emergency food users in Victoria, Australia. J Hunger Environ Nutr. 2017;12(1):26–45.

Tarasuk V, Eakin JM. Charitable food assistance as symbolic gesture: An ethnographic study of food banks in Ontario. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(7):1505–15.

Sobal J, Khan LK, Bisogni C. A conceptual model of the food and nutrition system. Soc Sci Med. 1998;47(7):853–63.

Dror Y. Policy analysts: a new professional role in government service. Public Adm Rev. 1967;27(3):197–203.

Hammond RA, Dubé L. A systems science perspective and transdisciplinary models for food and nutrition security. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012;109:12356–63.

Daponte BO, Bade S. How the private food assistance network evolved: interactions between public and private responses to hunger. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q. 2006;35(4):668–90.

Tarasuk V, Eakin JM. Food assistance through "surplus" food: insights from an ethnographic study of food bank work. Agri Human Values. 2005;22(2):177–86.

Pew Research Center (2013). Canada’s changing religious landscape. Retrieved from https://www.pewforum.org/2013/06/27/canadas-changing-religious-landscape/ . Accessed 10 Nov 2021.

Pew Research Center (2018). Young adults around the world are less religious by several measures. Retrieved from https://www.pewforum.org/2018/06/13/young-adults-around-the-world-are-less-religious-by-several-measures/ . Accessed 10 Nov 2021.

Beaulac J, Kristjansson E, Cummins S. A systematic review of food deserts, 1966–2007. Prev Chronic Dis. 2009;6(3):A105.

Food Pantries. Find Food Pantries . https://www.foodpantries.org/ . Accessed 10 Nov 2021.

Riediger, Natalie, 2022, "Charitable food descriptors located in 12 states in America", https://doi.org/10.34990/FK2/GHL06P , University of Manitoba, V1, UNF:6:B8jxycLhATZEObfR8BW2mQ== [fileUNF].

United States Census Bureau. https://geocoding.geo.census.gov/geocoder/ . Accessed 10 Nov 2021.

Google Maps. https://www.google.ca/maps/ . Accessed 10 Nov 2021.

United States Census Bureau. 2010 Census tract reference maps . 2018 https://wwwcensusgov/geographies/reference-maps/2010/geo/2010-census-tract-mapshtml‌ Accessed 10 Nov 2021.

United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Food Access Research Atlas . 2017. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas/ . Accessed 10 Nov 2021.

United States Census Bureau. United States Summary: 2010. Population and Housing Unit Counts 2012. https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/cph-2-1.pdf . Accessed 11 Nov 2021.

United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Documentation. 2017. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas/documentation/ . Accessed 11 Nov 2021.

Coleman-Jensen A, Rabbitt MP, Gregory CA, Singh A. Household food security in the United States in 2020, ERR-298, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service; 2021. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/102076/err-298.pdf?v=4819.7 . Accessed 16 Nov 2021.

Gundersen C, Ziliak JP. Food insecurity research in the United States: where we have been and where we need to go. Appl Econ Persp Policy. 2018;40(1):119–35.

Coleman-Jensen A, Rabbitt M, Gregory C, Singh A. Household food security in the United States in 2017, ERR-256, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service; 2018. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/90023/err-256.pdf?v=0 . Accessed 10 Nov 2021.

Coleman-Jensen A, Nord M, Andrews M, Carlson S. Statistical supplement to household food security in the United States in 2016. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service; 2016. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/84981/ap-077.pdf?v=0 . Accessed 10 Nov 2021.

Baum F, Fisher M. Why behavioural health promotion endures despite its failure to reduce health inequities. Sociol Health Illness. 2014;36(2):213–25.

Raphael D. Grasping at straws: a recent history of health promotion in Canada. Crit Public Health. 2008;18(4):483–95.

Carey G, Malbon E, Crammond B, Pescud M, Baker P. Can the sociology of social problems help us to understand and manage ‘lifestyle drift’? Health Promot Int. 2016;32(4):755–61.

U.S Religion Census (2019). The 2010 U.S. religion census. Retrieved from: http://usreligioncensus.org/ . Accessed 10 Nov 2021.

Gundersen C, Dewey A, Hake M, Engelhard E, Crumbaugh AS. Food insecurity across the rural-urban divide: are counties in need being reached by charitable food assistance? Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. 2017;672(1):217–37.

Campbell MK, Hudson MA, Resnicow K, Blakeney N, Paxton A, Baskin M. Church-based health promotion interventions: evidence and lessons learned. Annu Rev Public Health. 2007;28:213–34.

Stroope S, Baker JO. Whose moral community? Religiosity, secularity, and self-rated health across communal religious contexts. J Health Soc Behav. 2018;59(2):185–99.

Idler E, Levin J, VanderWeele TJ, Khan A. Partnerships between public health agencies and faith communities. Am J Public Health. 2019;109(3):346–7.

Kaiser ML, Cafer AM. Exploring long-term food pantry use: differences between persistent and prolonged typologies of use. J Hunger Environ Nutr. 2017;12(1):46–63.

Irwin JD, Ng VK, Rush TJ, Nguyen C, He M. Can food banks sustain nutrient requirements? Can J Public Health. 2007;98(1):17–20.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the students involved in data collection and Kelsey Mann for her editorial support.

This study was funded through start-up funds to NDR from the University of Manitoba and the University Research Grants Program (2016). NDR is funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Early Career Investigator Award (grant number 155435). RB was funded by the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Scholarship Program (2017–2018).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Food and Human Nutritional Sciences, Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences, University of Manitoba, 209 Human Ecology Building, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

Natalie D. Riediger, Lindsey Dahl & Adriana N. Mudryj

Department of Community Health Sciences, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

Natalie D. Riediger & Mahmoud Torabi

Manitoba Centre for Health Policy, Department of Community Health Sciences, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

Lindsey Dahl

Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, India

Rajeshwari A. Biradar

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, KLE Academy of Higher Education & Research (K.A.H.E.R) Nehru Nagar, Belagavi, Karnataka, India

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

NR was involved in formulating the research question, designing the study, and drafting the manuscript. LD was involved in data analysis, contributing to interpretation, and drafting the manuscript. RB was involved in collecting the data, data analysis, contributing to interpretation, and reviewing the manuscript for intellectual content. AM was involved in designing the study, collecting the data, contributing to interpretation, and reviewing the manuscript for intellectual content. MT was involved in designing the study, contributing to interpretation, and reviewing the manuscript for intellectual content. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natalie D. Riediger .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors have no conflicts of interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Riediger, N.D., Dahl, L., Biradar, R.A. et al. A descriptive analysis of food pantries in twelve American states: hours of operation, faith-based affiliation, and location. BMC Public Health 22 , 525 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-12847-0

Download citation

Received : 14 June 2021

Accepted : 23 February 2022

Published : 17 March 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-12847-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Food pantry
• Food security
• Faith-based

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

UConn Today

• School and College News
• Arts & Culture
• Community Impact
• Entrepreneurship
• Health & Well-Being
• Research & Discovery
• UConn Health
• University Life
• UConn Voices
• University News

December 13, 2022 | Anna Zarra Aldrich, College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources

Study Provides Insight on Mobile Food Pantries, Charitable Food System

A UConn research team looked at how mobile food pantries help address food insecurity for families with children during the pandemic and beyond

During the COVID-19 pandemic, food pantries across the country pivoted to create “mobile” options, repurposing school buses or using large tractor-trailers to deliver food to different neighborhoods.

This was especially important as rates of food insecurity increased across the U.S. One group that was particularly hard-hit was lower-income families with young children.

Molly Waring, associate professor in the College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources , and her research team surveyed a group of mothers with young children. Along with colleague Caitlin Caspi, also an associate professor in CAHNR and researcher with the UConn Rudd Center for Food Policy and Health, Waring and her team examined mothers’ interest in and concerns about utilizing mobile food pantries.

While mobile food pantries did exist before the pandemic, disruptions to in-person services due to the COVID-19 pandemic starting in March 2020 led to a significant expansion of food pantries operating out of vehicles or other mobile setups.

The researchers conducted a survey of mothers in spring 2021, and asked respondents about their use of food pantries to better fill gaps in our understanding of how the charitable food system could best serve different populations.

“I think we have some gaps in understanding how this could best work,” Caspi says. “The norms are evolving. It’s hard to make a generalization about what these food pantries look like. What this research does is demonstrate that there’s interest in learning more.”

Waring and Caspi, who are faculty members in Department of Allied Health Sciences , worked with then-undergraduate students Alma Jeri-Wahrhaftig ’22 (CAHNR), Alexa Horkachuck ’21 (CAHNR), and Indra Kapoor ’21 (CAHNR) who are all authors on the paper in Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition where they published their results.

The survey included 53 mothers from across the U.S. who had utilized food pantries either within the year before the pandemic or during it. The UConn researchers found that 60% of the mothers surveyed were “very interested” in using mobile food pantries, and another 19% were “quite a bit interested.”

The main advantage of these mobile pantries is that they come right to clients’ neighborhoods, or even their homes in some cases.

“The idea that something would come to your neighborhood was very appealing to a majority of moms,” Waring says.

Some of the most common concerns surrounded issues of cleanliness, food safety, and the quantity and variety of healthy food options available.

“Many of those would be concerns in a brick-and-mortar food pantry as well,” Waring says.

There is very little data about mobile food pantries during the pandemic, given that in many cases, these mobile operations were temporary responses to disruptions caused by the pandemic. Further, the charitable food system is understudied in general compared with government-sponsored food security programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

One of the largest gaps in understanding mobile food pantries is knowledge of what kind of food they distribute. Previous research shows that food pantry clients value access to fresh fruits and vegetables and other healthy food staples.

“Understanding their needs and challenges is important to make sure we’re addressing food insecurity for families with children,” Waring says.

While this study focused on families with young children, different populations have different needs and concerns yet to be explored.

This work is just one piece of the puzzle of understanding how to improve the charitable food system, especially as conversations about food insecurity in the U.S. have become more prominent in light of the challenges COVID-19 exposed.

“There are some great conversations happening now about what we want the system to look like given that the need isn’t going away any time soon,” Caspi says.

Follow  UConn CAHNR  on social media

Recent Articles

April 26, 2024

Marissa Salvo Named the 2024 School of Pharmacy Faculty Service Award Recipient

Read the article

Mathew Chandy ’24, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences 

For the Love of Plants: Garden Club of America to Tour UConn’s Botanical Conservatory

Healthy Eating Research

• Program Staff
• National Advisory Committee
• Our Commitment to Health Equity
• Resources for Researchers
• Current Funding Opportunities
• Healthy Communities
• Diet Quality & Healthy Weight
• Early Childhood
• Food Access
• Food Marketing
• Food Retail
• Nutrition Policy & Programs
• Pricing & Economics
• School & After School
• List of All Research & Publications
• Ages 0-2 Feeding Recommendations
• Ages 0-5 Beverage Recommendations
• Ages 2-8 Feeding Recommendations
• Ages 5+ Beverage Recommendations
• Grantee Announcements

Healthy Eating Research Nutrition Guidelines for the Charitable Food System

Published: March 2020

See more related research

Federal food programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) are the first line of defense against food insecurity in the United States. However, these benefits are often not sufficient to meet all of the food needs of people living in food insecure households. The charitable food system—a network of food banks, food pantries, and meal programs—fills this gap by distributing billions of pounds of food annually. In 2019, Healthy Eating Research convened a panel of experts in the charitable food system, nutrition, and food policy fields to create clear, specific recommendations for evidence-based nutrition guidelines tailored to the unique needs and capacity of the charitable food system. The intent of these recommendations is to improve the quality of foods in food banks and pantries in order to increase access to and promote healthier food choices across the charitable food system, allowing all people in the United States—regardless of income—access to the foods necessary for an active, healthy life.

A one-page overview of the recommendations is available here. Additional resources can be found on the HER Nutrition Guidelines webpage .

Disponible en Español:

Guías de Nutrición para Clasificar Alimentos de Programas de Asistencia Alimentaria

Clasificación General de Alimentos de Acuerdo con las Guías del Panel

HER Nutrition Guidelines Webpage

Find the latest updates on the HER Nutrition Guidelines and additional resources, including a Food Lookup Tool, Guidelines to help Categorize Foods, and more.

Nutrition in Food Banking Toolkit

The Nutrition in Food Banking Toolkit from Feeding America is a resource to help the charitable food sector better understand and meet nutrition needs of our neighbors experiencing food insecurity. It includes the HER Nutrition Guidelines for the Charitable Food System.

Revised Supporting Wellness at Pantries (SWAP) Tools

SWAP was developed in 2016 and revised in 2020 to align with the Healthy Eating Research Nutrition Guidelines for the Charitable Food System. Revised SWAP tools include:

• SWAP Toolkit
• SWAP and Alignment with the HER Nutrition Guidelines
• SWAP: Overview of a Stoplight Nutrition System for Food Banks and Food Pantries
• Steps for Getting Started Using SWAP in Your Food Bank
• Using Inventory Data to Produce Reports for Stakeholders
• Implementing the SWAP Stoplight Nutrition System: Frequently Asked Questions

Resource Type: Expert Panel Report

Focus Area: Food Access

Keywords: Food insecurity , Fruits and vegetables , Nutrition standards

Related Research

January 2024

Food Insecurity and the Child Tax Credit

November 2023

Evaluating the impact of state-level economic-support policies on the nutritional health of kids and families

Understanding the social safety net’s impact on food security to inform policy on how best to support children in low-income families.

• Submit       Member Login

Access provided by

Login to your account

If you don't remember your password, you can reset it by entering your email address and clicking the Reset Password button. You will then receive an email that contains a secure link for resetting your password

If the address matches a valid account an email will be sent to __email__ with instructions for resetting your password

Download started.

• Academic & Personal: 24 hour online access
• Corporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
• Add To Online Library Powered By Mendeley
• Add To My Reading List
• Export Citation
• Create Citation Alert

Nutrition Environment at Food Pantries Improves After Fresh Produce Donation Program

• Starr'Retiece Gibson, MS Starr'Retiece Gibson Affiliations Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL Search for articles by this author
• Jessica Jarick Metcalfe, PhD, MPH Jessica Jarick Metcalfe Affiliations Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL Search for articles by this author
• Jennifer McCaffrey, PhD, MPH, RD Jennifer McCaffrey Affiliations Office of Extension and Outreach, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL Search for articles by this author
• Trinity Allison, MS, RD Trinity Allison Affiliations Office of Extension and Outreach, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL Search for articles by this author
• Melissa Pflugh Prescott, PhD, RDN Melissa Pflugh Prescott Correspondence Address for correspondence: Melissa Pflugh Prescott, PhD, RDN, Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 539 Bevier Hall, Mail Code 182, 905 S Goodwin Ave, Urbana, IL 61801 Contact Affiliations Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL Search for articles by this author

Conclusions and Implications

• food pantries
• fresh produce
• food access

Purchase one-time access:

Sneb member login.

Food and Agriculture Organiation of the United States. Hunger and food insecurity. http://www.fao.org/hunger/en/ . Accessed April 4, 2021.

• Google Scholar

United States Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. Key statistics & graphics. 2019. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx . Accessed April 4, 2021.

• Schanzenbach D

Feeding America. Hunger in America. https://www.feedingamerica.org/research/hunger-in-america . Accessed April 4, 2021.

• Scopus (211)
• Scopus (158)
• Full Text PDF
• Scopus (98)
• Scopus (339)
• Scopus (240)
• Tinnemann P
• Stroebele-Benschop N.
• Scopus (109)

Kirkpatrick SI, Dodd KW, Reedy J, Krebs-Smith SM. Income and race/ethnicity are associated with adherence to food-based dietary guidance among US adults and children. J Acad Nutr Diet . 2012;112:624–635.e6.

• Scopus (122)
• Campbell EC
• Scopus (92)
• Scopus (14)
• McCaffrey J
• Scopus (79)
• Scopus (56)
• Wallinga D.
• Scopus (49)
• Scopus (21)
• Wilson NLWW

Illinois Extension. Extension works to end hunger for Illinois families. 2018. https://extension.illinois.edu/spotlight/extension-works-end-hunger-illinois-families . Accessed April 4, 2021.

Illinois Extension. Who we are. https://extension.illinois.edu/global/who-we-are . Accessed April 4, 2021.

Illinois Extension. Illinois Master gardeners. https://web.extension.illinois.edu/mg/whoweare/become.cfm . Accessed April 4, 2021.

• Nikolaus CJ
• Scopus (16)
• Byker Shanks C
• Scopus (46)
• Scopus (27)
• Scopus (1551)
• Bush-Kaufman A
• Scopus (12)

Stowers KC, Martin KS, Read M, et al. Supporting Wellness at Pantries (SWAP): changes to inventory in six food pantries over one year. J Public Health (Berl.) . 2020.

• Canterbury M
• Scopus (39)

USDA. Policy, systems, and environmental change. 2021. https://snaped.fns.usda.gov/snap-ed-works/policy-systems-and-environmental-change . Accessed April 4, 2021.

• Williamson D
• Haardörfer R
• Scopus (13)
• Diekmann LO
• Scopus (25)
• Barnidge EK
• Barnhart KJ
• Brownson RC
• Scopus (64)

Article info

Publication history.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: The authors have not stated any conflicts of interest.

Identification

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2021.09.005

ScienceDirect

Related articles.

• Download Hi-res image
• Download .PPT
• Access for Developing Countries
• Articles & Issues
• Articles In Press
• Current Issue
• List of Issues
• Supplements
• For Authors
• Author Guidelines
• Submit Your Manuscript
• Statistical Methods
• Guidelines for Authors of Educational Material Reviews
• Permission to Reuse
• About Open Access
• Researcher Academy
• For Reviewers
• General Guidelines
• Methods Paper Guidelines
• Qualitative Guidelines
• Quantitative Guidelines
• Questionnaire Methods Guidelines
• Statistical Methods Guidelines
• Systematic Review Guidelines
• Perspective Guidelines
• GEM Reviewing Guidelines
• Journal Info
• About the Journal
• Disclosures
• Abstracting/Indexing
• Impact/Metrics
• Contact Information
• Editorial Staff and Board
• Info for Advertisers
• Member Access Instructions
• New Content Alerts
• Sponsored Supplements
• Statistical Reviewers
• Reviewer Appreciation
• New Resources
• New Resources for Nutrition Educators
• Submit New Resources for Review
• Guidelines for Writing Reviews of New Resources for Nutrition Educators
• Podcast/Webinars
• New Resources Podcasts
• Press Release & Other Podcasts
• Collections
• Society News

The content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals.

• Privacy Policy   
• Terms and Conditions   
• Accessibility   
• Help & Contact

• Open supplemental data
• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Brief research report article, the food bank and food pantries help food insecure participants maintain fruit and vegetable intake during covid-19.

• 1 Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences, The University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, United States
• 2 Food Systems Program, The University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, United States
• 3 Gund Institute for Environment, The University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, United States

Charitable food services, including food banks and pantries, support individual and households' food access, potentially maintaining food security and diet quality during emergencies. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of food banks and pantries has increased in the US. Here we examine perceptions of food banks and food pantries and their relationship to food security and fruit and vegetable (FV) intake during the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, using a statewide representative survey ( n = 600) of residents of Vermont. The utilization of food pantries was more common among food insecure households and households with children. Among food insecure respondents, those who did not use a food pantry were significantly more likely to report consuming less FV during the pandemic. Further, we find respondents who are food insecure and using a food pantry report consuming more FV since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. We found that respondents who were both food insecure and reported not using a food pantry were significantly more likely to report both a reduction in fruit consumption ( b = −0.58; p = 0.001) and a reduction in vegetable consumption ( b = −0.415; p = 0.012). These results indicate that these services may support food access and one important dimension of diet quality (FV intake) for at-risk populations during emergencies.

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic, associated shutdowns, and social distancing measures designed to slow its spread have profoundly impacted the US food system and food access. According to the Pew Research Center, job disruptions have been widespread; lower-income adults have been hardest hit, with half of their households reporting a job or wage loss due to the pandemic ( 1 ). These disruptions have been disproportionately acute among women, low-income communities, and people of color ( 1 ), which have catalyzed important changes in the food supply chain and food security. Recent research suggests that the food insecurity rates have reached levels unprecedented in recent history ( 2 – 4 ).

With the shift from worksites, schools, and restaurant dining, to greater at-home preparation and consumption, food procurement shifted and, in many cases, overwhelmed grocery stores ( 5 ). Simultaneously, food insecure populations turned to charitable feeding systems (e.g., food banks, pantries) ( 6 ). Demands for charitable food services are reported to have increased from 50 to 140% in the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic ( 7 , 8 ). In the year prior to the pandemic, 18% of Vermonters reported experiencing food insecurity ( 2 ). Food insecurity rose by 32% in the first months following the outbreak ( 2 ). By June 2020, nationwide, more than 82% of food banks reported higher numbers of patrons than they did the year prior ( 9 ). A longitudinal population-level survey conducted in Vermont in March and May 2020 found that demand for charitable food services increased by 68%, from 7.1 to 12.0% ( 10 ). In October 2020, Feeding America reported they were on track to distribute 50% more food when comparing October 2019 and October 2020 ( 11 ).

Health inequalities in the US follow a socioeconomic continuum where low-income, low-resource households disproportionally experience higher levels of food-related health risks ( 12 ). Further, inequalities, lack of transportation, and geographic disparities magnify structural and environmental factors contributing to food insecurity and poor dietary health ( 13 , 14 ). Compared to wealthier households, low-income households cook more meals at home ( 15 ) yet consume fewer fruits and vegetables (FV) ( 16 ) and are more likely not to meet the servings of FV recommended by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans ( 17 ). Nanney et al. ( 18 ) examined 269 food shelves using the HEI-2010 (Healthy Eating Index) and concluded that the majority of available food (89%) “needs improvement” for nutritional adequacy. Further, they found significant seasonal fluctuations with the month and quarter scores in July, August, and September significantly higher than in December.

Charitable food services vary in FV distribution from region to region. Vermont is known for its resilient local food system ( 19 ) and has several agencies, organizations, and programs to help address hunger issues in the state. According to the Hunger in America 2014 ( 13 ) report for Vermont Foodbank, of the 23 meal-based relief agencies analyzed, 42.1% aided clients in accessing local food resources. Further, many sites have introduced client choice ( 20 ) to provide food pantry patrons choice; many additional organizations have been transitioning to a client-choice model. This approach allows clients to take products they want and will use. By incorporating behavioral economic techniques, recent initiatives have shown success in nudging clients to select more fruits, vegetables, and nutrient-dense foods ( 21 ). COVID-19 has presented new challenges for these programs as they work to meet growing food needs while protecting staff, volunteers, and clients' health.

This study aims to understand charitable food programs' role during the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Emerging international research suggests that COVID-19 mitigation has negatively impacted diet quality during the pandemic ( 22 ). We explore how FV intake changed among a representative sample of Vermonters and examine the emergency food system's role in maintaining access to FVs during a humanitarian crisis.

Survey Development and Recruitment

The research team, in collaboration with other researchers in the National Food Access and COVID research Team (NFACT) ( 22 ), developed and piloted a survey in March 2020 ( 23 ). After two rounds of data collection in March 2020 and June 2020, additional refinements to the pilot survey included food access, food security, food purchasing, food assistance program participation, dietary intake, perceptions of COVID-19, and individual social distancing behaviors, as well as household and individual sociodemographics ( 24 ). Data collection for this study was conducted in August and September 2020 ( 25 ). We obtained Institutional Review Board approval from the University of Vermont (IRB protocol 00000873). The survey was explicitly designed to measure critical outcomes (e.g., food access, food security, food purchasing, and dietary intake) both before the COVID-19 outbreak (dated as of March 11, 2020, the day the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic) ( 26 ) and since the pandemic began. The survey utilizes validated measures when possible ( Supplementary Table 1 ). The survey was piloted in Vermont, with 25 eligible (18 or older) residents in late March, and validation methods (e.g., Cronbach alpha, factor analysis) were used to test the internal validity of questions with key constructs (alpha > 0.70) ( 2 ).

Sampling Approaches

We deployed our online survey to a panel of respondents recruited by Qualtrics (Provo, UT). We developed a sampling strategy for achieving a general population sample reflecting characteristics of the state including income, race, and ethnicity in Vermont. This sample was achieved by matching sample recruitment quotas to the income, race (specifically White, Black or African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and Two or more races), and ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic) population profile of Vermont in the American Community Survey (ACS) ( Supplementary Table 2 ) ( 27 ). A total of 600 people ages 18 and over responded to the survey, representing a margin of error (95% confidence level) for the adult population of Vermont ±4% ( 27 ).

Variables of Interest

We explore three self-reported dependent variables in this analysis ( Supplementary Table 1 ). First, we measured food security status using the US Department of Agriculture's 6-item short-form food security module ( 28 ). We asked respondents to reflect on the year before the COVID-19 pandemic to collect pre-pandemic food security status. Further, the traditional 12-month period was modified to ~6 months to measure food security status since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Following standard scoring protocol, we summarized responses for each item, and classified respondents who answered one or two items affirmatively as living in food insecure households. Second, we measured current FV intake using the National Cancer Institute's two-item screener, modified to apply to the last month and with some example foods removed to shorten it ( 29 ). Finally, we examined the perceived change in FV consumption since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Independent variables included multiple questions related to current food bank and food pantry use, specific charitable food system participant experiences, and transportation other than their own vehicle; we also captured several household and individual-level demographics ( Table 1 ).

Table 1 . Survey respondents' individual and household demographic characteristics.

Statistical Analysis

To examine differences in household food insecurity during the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, we created three categories of respondents: (1) households with food security , including households that were food secure before and since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and households who were food insecure at some point in the year before the COVID-19 pandemic began but were no longer food insecure during the first 6 months of the pandemic; (2) households with persistent food insecurity , food insecure both at some point in the year before the COVID-19 pandemic began and experiencing food insecurity at some point during the first 6 months of the pandemic; (3) households with new food insecurity , categorized as food secure at all times in the year before the COVID-19 pandemic began, but food insecure at some point since the start of the pandemic. We report statistical significance as anything p < 0.05.

To determine statistically significant differences between groups, we utilized SPSS Version 27 ( 30 ) and Stata Version 16 ( 31 ) to run descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and multivariable logit models. Specifically, we used chi-square tests to analyze food pantry use related to each item of the food security module. In our multivariable regression models, we use a set of demographic controls including gender, children in the household, respondents over 55, respondents identifying as Black, Indigenous, or People of Color (BIPOC) and/or Hispanic, food security status ( 28 ), households with any job loss or negative change since the start of the pandemic, households making <$50,000 in 2019, and households using transportation for food access other than their own vehicle (e.g., public transportation, ride from a friend) since March 2020. It is important to note that although this survey is representative of Vermont state characteristics on race and ethnicity, the sample size is not sufficient to analyze racial and ethnic groups in a disaggregated format in models. Therefore, we have disaggregated race and ethnicity in all food security statistics in the results but use aggregated race and ethnicity for modeling. We used a multivariable logit model with these demographic controls to predict food pantry use (yes/no) since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Then, we use a multinomial logit model with demographic controls to predict a change in FV consumption since COVID-19 (decreased, stayed the same, or increased). Finally, we use a multivariable regression model to predict the current intake of FV, measured on a continuous scale, with demographic controls. All variables and their descriptions are included in Supplementary Table 1 . Coefficients are reported as odds ratios for the logistic regression model only. We used all available data to estimate effect sizes and interactions and assumed any missing data were missing at random.

Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

Our sample reflected the demographic composition of the Vermont population for income, race, and ethnicity distribution. The majority of our respondents identified as female (67.3%), non-Hispanic White, without children in the household, and had a household income below $75,000 ( Table 1 ). Almost half of the respondents (46.2%) experienced a change in employment at some point between March and September 2020. Changes included loss of employment (24.8%), reduced hours or income (34.7%), and furlough (20.3%). Only 5.0% of respondents utilized transportation other than a personal vehicle between March and September 2020 ( Table 1 ).

Food Insecurity Prevalence

Nearly one in three (29.0%) respondent households were food insecure at some point between March and September 2020. Among those experiencing food insecurity since the start of the pandemic ( n = 165), 72.1% also experienced food insecurity at some point in the year before the pandemic; in comparison, 27.9% were newly food insecure ( Table 1 ).

Fruit and Vegetable Consumption

The 2020–2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), released on December 28, 2020, recommend that people needing 2,000 calories per day should include at least 2 cups of fruit and 2.5 cups of vegetables in their daily diets. During the COVID-19 pandemic, 15.5% of respondents met the recommendation for fruit intake, and ~27.7% of respondents met the recommendations for vegetables ( Table 1 ).

Changes in Fruit and Vegetable Consumption During the First 6 Months of COVID-19

Multinomial logit models predicted factors contributing to more, less, or the same FV consumption during the first 6 months of COVID-19 ( p ≤ 0.001, Table 2 ). Respondents who were food insecure and did not use a food pantry since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic reported consuming significantly less FV ( b = 2.29; p < 0.001). Further, among respondents who utilized food pantries since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, both food insecure and food secure participants also reported consuming significantly less FV ( b = 1.72; p < 0.001 and b = 1.174; p = 0.034). Conversely, we found BIPOC/Hispanic respondents were more likely to have increased their FV intake ( b = 0.96; p = 0.026) during the first 6 months of the pandemic as compared to non-Hispanic White respondents. Finally, we found that food insecure respondents who reported utilizing a food pantry reported consuming significantly more FV since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic ( b = 1.138; p = 0.17)

Table 2 . Multinomial logit model predicting change in fruit and vegetable consumption during the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Fruit and Vegetable Consumption During the First 6 Months of COVID-19

Using multivariable regression models, we found that respondents in households with children ( b = 0.29; p = 0.039), those who use a form of transportation other than their own vehicle ( b = 0.63; p = 0.020), and those over 55 years old ( b = 0.27; p = 0.049) reported having higher fruit intake during the first 6 months of the pandemic than respondents from households without children, those who used their own vehicle, and those aged 18–55 years ( Table 3 ). We found that respondents from low-income households ( b = −0.39; p = 0.002) and respondents in food insecure households ( b = −0.57; p = 0.001) were more likely to report consuming less fruit than higher income and food secure households. We found that respondents over 55 years old ( b = 0.34; p = 0.013) reported having higher vegetable intake in the first 6 months of the pandemic compared to younger respondents and those from low-income households ( b = −0.63; p = 0.000). Finally, we found that respondents who were both food insecure and reported not using a food pantry were significantly more likely to report both a reduction in fruit consumption ( b = −0.58; p = 0.001) and a reduction in vegetable consumption (b = 0.415; p = 0.012).

Table 3 . Multivariable regression models predicting fruit and vegetable consumption during the first 6 months of COVID-19.

Pantry Utilization Buffers Aspects of Food Access Among Low-Income Households

Food pantry users were significantly more likely to be food insecure ( p < 0.001) than non-pantry users. While low-income households (earning <$50,000 annually) were more likely to use food pantries, we also found that, for low-income households, using food pantries was associated with greater affirmative responses for each food security item [Chi-squared p < 0.001 for all differences ( Supplementary Figure 1 ; Supplementary Table 3 )]. Expressly, as compared to respondents not using a food pantry, 21% fewer respondents from low-income households who utilized a food pantry since March 2020 agreed that the food they had did not last and they did not have money to get more (20.0%; 41.2%) and that they could afford to eat a balanced meal (20.2%; 40.7%). Among those earning $50,000 annually or less, 60% fewer respondents whose households utilized food pantries agreed that adults in their household had cut the size of their meals or skipped meals because there was not enough money for food as compared to respondents whose households did not utilize food pantries (15.6%; 21.1%). Among the same subset of respondents, four percent fewer respondents whose households utilized a food bank or food pantry reported that they had to eat less (17.0%; 20.8%) or cut the size of their meals or skip meals (17.1%; 21.3%) because there was not enough money for food.

Food Pantry Utilization

About one in seven respondents (14.5%) reported that their household utilized a food bank or food pantry between March and September 2020 ( Table 4 ). Those with increased odds of utilizing these food distribution services were food insecure (OR = 6.55, 95% CI = 3.52, 12.20) and low-income households (OR = 3.85, 95% CI = 2.01, 7.38), and respondents using transportation other than their own vehicle (OR = 4.68, 95% CI = 1.87, 11.70) ( Table 4 ).

Table 4 . Multivariate analysis predicting odds of food pantry use since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Food Pantry Participant Experiences

We found that the vast majority of respondents (85%) who utilized food pantries during the first 6 months of the pandemic ( n = 86) agreed or strongly agreed that food pantries have been helpful ( Supplementary Figure 2 ). Approximately one-third of pantry users indicated concerns, including that pantries run out of food often (35%), have long lines and wait times (34%), and have inconvenient or irregular hours (30%). Other concerns among food pantry users included pantries not having the food their family likes (22%) or good quality food (22%) and not knowing how to prepare food the pantry provides (12%).

To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the relationship between the charitable food system (food banks, pantries/shelves) and FV consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, we find that 14.5% of our respondents utilized a food pantry which mirrors increased demand nationally as evidenced by media outlets' reports ( 7 – 9 ). Among food insecure respondents, we found those who did not use a food pantry were significantly more likely to report consuming less FV during the pandemic. Additionally, we found that respondents who are food insecure and using a food pantry report consuming more FV since the onset of the pandemic. Furthermore, we found that respondents who were both food insecure and reported not using a food pantry were significantly more likely to report both a reduction in fruit consumption and a reduction in vegetable consumption. These results suggest that utilization of food banks and food pantries has a relationship with perceptions of FV access and reported intake.

Although low-income households were more likely to prepare home cooked meals before the COVID-19 pandemic ( 15 ), disparities exist in FV intake across socioeconomic status. Home cooked meals are generally associated with higher FV intake ( 32 ). While most households do not eat enough FV—low-income households and those with food insecurity are especially at risk of low FV intake and limited dietary variety. Higher FV intake is associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, co-morbidities, and all-cause mortality ( 33 ). Our results suggest that the food bank/food pantry system may play a role in blunting the adverse effects of a humanitarian crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic by increasing food access for low-income households and thereby mitigating reductions in their overall FV intake.

Although we found an association between food security status and pantry use, Robaina and Martin ( 32 ) demonstrated that our low-income pantry users answered specific statements within the USDA Food Security Module at a significantly lower affirmative rate compared to low-income non-users. We recognize that the USDA defines food security based on Anderson's 1990 Report ( 34 ), where food security is acquired “without resorting to emergency food supplies” ( 34 ). Our findings demonstrate that the food bank/food pantry system may have helped maintain several components of food access and FV intake among food insecure users of this system. Our results suggest that although food bank use does not impact the overall food security rate, food security indicators such as “food did not last” and they “could not afford a balanced meal” are associated with positive outcomes among those using food pantries. Further evidence that use of food banks/food pantries may improve food access includes our findings that 85% of users found food pantries helpful.

As expected, both food insecure and low-income populations are at greater odds of using a food bank/food pantry as compared to food secure and higher income households. We also found the population using any form of transportation other than their own vehicle to be more likely to use a food bank/food pantry, probably due at least in part to the greater reliance on public transportation among low-income persons in the US ( 35 , 36 ). Further, studies suggest associations between unemployment and significantly lower levels of car ownership especially among BIPOC and female head of household families ( 37 ). With state and local social distancing requirements informing distribution, many food pantries have shifted from a super-market-type layout to a drive-up operation where volunteers assembled pre-packaged food boxes and placed them in the patron's vehicle ( 9 ). Patrons who rely on public transportation may experience barriers to this new food distribution model. Future studies should include inquiries into the patrons experience with pre-packaged food box distribution.

Although FV intake did not differ between non-Hispanic White and respondents from racial and ethnic minority populations at the time of our survey, BIPOC/Hispanic respondents were more likely to report a significant increase in FV intake during the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. This is notable and important since increasing FV intake is a national public health goal, and FV intake tends to be lower among some racial and ethnic groups ( 38 ). The FV intake among BIPOC respondents mirrors findings in France by Marty et al. ( 39 ), who found an increase in FV consumption during the lockdown. However, their subjects also increased their consumption of sugary foods, sodium, and alcoholic beverage, which our study did not capture ( 40 ).

We acknowledge that charitable food services are part of a broader system of food access and food security. The charitable food system is designed as an emergency stop-gap and is valuable in crises like the one presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, but does not replace the central role of federal nutrition assistance programs, which are purposely designed to supplement the diverse needs of the most vulnerable Americans. Researchers ( 41 ) indicate that the chronic reliance on charitable food services can worsen food security for many households and limit access to culturally and medically appropriate foods. An additional important role of the charitable food system is to help link people to other programs in times of need. It remains to be investigated the extent to which this occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Limitations

We note a few limitations. First, although our approach's strength was the use of quota sampling to achieve alignment between the sample and the population of Vermont with respect to race, ethnicity, and income, respondents may have differed in other ways. Prior work has demonstrated differences between participants in online survey research and the general population, including greater participation among women, which we saw in our sample ( 42 , 43 ). Online surveys may lead to response bias and the over-representation of females. Second, self-reported dietary data are subject to recall and response bias ( 44 ). Although the two-item FV intake instrument that we used has adequate reliability, it has low validity for measuring precise intake levels ( 29 ). We used this instrument to compare individuals concerning FV intake rather than estimate actual intake in line with recommendations ( 29 ). Further, our study was conducted in August and September when the availability of local FV is at an annual peak. Research is needed that utilizes a more robust and inclusive measure of dietary intake and dietary quality. Finally, these cross-sectional data do not allow rigorous evaluation of a causal link between food pantry use and food security or FV intake. Future research should address these limitations and consider the longer-term associations between food pantry use, food security, and dietary intake in crisis contexts.

This study documented use and experiences with the charitable food system, including associations with food security and FV intake outcomes, among a statewide sample in Vermont, US, in the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. We found that food bank/food pantry use significantly increased in Vermont since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results document improved FV intake among low-income households that utilized food pantries as compared with low-income households that did not. Taken together, the results suggest that the charitable food system is an important way in which people can supplement their food budget and maintain food access during a humanitarian crisis. However, it is essential to note that Vermont's resilient food system and support programs may have impacted these results and the seasonal abundance when this survey was conducted. Additional research should be conducted more fully to understand these relationships over time and in greater depth. Increased analysis of the food provided through food pantries serving diverse populations may be important to assess the overall accessibility of healthy, culturally, and medically acceptable foods for at-risk populations. The heightened usage of the charitable food system during the COVID-19 pandemic highlights not only the importance of food pantries but reinforces the need for funding, maintenance, and preparedness of these emergency programs.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/ Supplementary Material , further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Institutional Review Board approval was obtained from the University of Vermont under protocol 00000873. Consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

FB, KR, EB, and MN wrote the original manuscript, provided data curation, code, codebooks, resources, read, edited, and approved the final manuscript. FB and KR provided conceptualization. FB and MN provided methods and data curation. MN, FB, and EB acquired funding. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Funding for this work was provided by the University of Vermont's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and Office of the Vice President of Research, the Gund Institute for Environment at the University of Vermont, and the USDA Agricultural Research Service Center for Food Systems Research.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2021.673158/full#supplementary-material

1. Groshen E. How Did COVID-19's Job Disruptions Vary by Gender, Race and Hispanic Ethnicity in May 2020? | The ILR School. Available online at: https://www.ilr.cornell.edu/work-and-coronavirus/work-and-jobs/how-did-covid-19s-job-disruptions-vary-gender-race-and-hispanic-ethnicity-may-2020 (accessed February 26, 2021).

PubMed Abstract

2. Niles MT, Bertmann F, Belarmino EH, Wentworth T, Biehl E, Neff R. The early food insecurity impacts of COVID-19. Nutrients. (2020) 12:2096. doi: 10.3390/nu12072096

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

3. McCartney M. Margaret McCartney: Clean eating and the cult of healthism. BMJ. (2016) 354:4095. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4095

4. Wolfson JA, Leung CW. Food insecurity during COVID-19: an acute crisis with long-term health implications. Am J Public Health. (2020) 24:e1–3. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305953

5. Hobbs JE. Food supply chains during the COVID-19 pandemic. Can J Agric Econ Can Agroeconomie. (2020) 68:171–6. doi: 10.1111/cjag.12237

6. Schwartz M, Levi R, Lott M, Arm K, Seligman H. Healthy eating research nutrition guidelines for the charitable food system. Healthy Eat Res. (2020).

Google Scholar

7. Kulish N. ‘Never Seen Anything Like It': Cars Line Up for Miles at Food Banks. The New York Times (2020). Available online at: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/business/economy/coronavirus-food-banks.html (accessed January 13, 2021).

8. Lakhani N. “A Perfect Storm”: US Facing Hunger Crisis as Demand for Food Banks Soars. The Guardian (2020). Available online at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/02/us-food-banks-coronavirus-demand-unemployment (accessed January 13, 2021).

9. Pandemic Growing, Need Strain U,.S. Food Bank Operations - WSJ. Available online at: https://www.wsj.com/articles/pandemic-growing-need-strain-u-s-food-bank-operations-11594891802 (accessed January 13, 2021).

10. Niles MT, Josephson AL, Bertmann F, Belarmino EH, Neff R. COVID-19 and Food Insecurity Impacts: A Follow Up Vermont Study. College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Faculty Publications (2020). p. 26. Available online at: https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/calsfac/26

11. Feeding America. The Food Bank Response to COVID, by the Numbers | Feeding America. Available online at: https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-blog/food-bank-response-covid-numbers (accessed January 13, 2021).

12. Drewnowski A, Specter SE. Poverty and obesity: the role of energy density and energy costs. Am J Clin Nutr. (2004) 79:6–16. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/79.1.6

13. Feeding America. Hunger In America Study | Feeding America. Available online at: https://www.feedingamerica.org/research/hunger-in-america (accessed January 13, 2021).

14. Clark-Barol M, Gaddis J, Barrett C. Food agency in low-income households: a qualitative study of the structural and individual factors impacting participants in a community-based nutrition program. Appetite. (2021) 158:105013. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2020.105013

15. Trubek AB, Carabello M, Morgan C, Lahne J. Empowered to cook: the crucial role of “food agency” in making meals. Appetite. (2017) 116:297–305. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2017.05.017

16. Hoisington A, Manore MM, Raab C. Nutritional quality of emergency foods. J Am Diet Assoc. (2011) 111:573–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2011.01.007

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

17. United States Department of Agriculture. Home | Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Available online at: https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/ (accessed January 13, 2021).

18. Nanney MS, Grannon KY, Cureton C, Hoolihan C, Janowiec M, Wang Q, et al. Application of the healthy eating index-2010 to the hunger relief system. Public Health Nutr. (2016) 19:2906–14. doi: 10.1017/S136898001600118X

19. Skog KL, Eriksen SE, Brekken CA, Francis C. Building resilience in social-ecological food systems in Vermont. Sustainability. (2018) 10:4813. doi: 10.3390/su10124813

20. Verpy H, Smith C, Reicks M. Attitudes and behaviors of food donors and perceived needs and wants of food shelf clients. J Nutr Educ Behav. (2003) 35:6–15. doi: 10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60321-7

21. Feeding America. The Power of Nudges: Making the Healthy Choice the Easy Choice in Food Pantries. Hunger and Health. Available online at: https://hungerandhealth.feedingamerica.org/resource/the-power-of-nudges-making-the-healthy-choice-the-easy-choice-in-food-pantries/ (accessed January 15, 2021).

22. Cheikh Ismail L, Osaili TM, Mohamad MN, Al Marzouqi A, Jarrar AH, Abu Jamous DO, et al. Eating habits and lifestyle during COVID-19 lockdown in the United Arab Emirates: a cross-sectional study. Nutrients. (2020) 12:3314. doi: 10.3390/nu12113314

23. Niles MT, Bertmann F, Morgan EH, Wentworth T, Biehl E, Neff R. Food Access and Security During Coronavirus: A Vermont Study. College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Faculty Publications (2020). p. 21. Available online at: https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/calsfac/21

24. Niles MT, Belarmino EH, Bertmann F, Biehl E, Acciai F, Josephson A, et al. Food insecurity during COVID-19: a multi-state research collaborative. medRxiv [Preprint]. (2020). doi: 10.1101/2020.12.01.20242024

25. Niles MT, Belarmino EH, Bertmann F. COVID-19 Impacts on Food Security and Systems: A Third Survey of Vermonters. College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Faculty Publications (2020). p. 27. Available online at: https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/calsfac/27

26. World Health Organization. WHO Director-General's Opening Remarks at the Media Briefing on COVID-19. (2020). Available online at: https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020 (accessed January 13, 2021).

27. Vermont Department of Health. Vermont Population Estimates. Vermont Department of Health (2016). Available online at: https://www.healthvermont.gov/health-statistics-vital-records/vital-records-population-data/vermont-population-estimates (accessed January 13, 2021).

28. United States Department of Agriculture. Food Security Survey Module: Six-Item Short Form. SNAP Education Connection. Available online at: https://snaped.fns.usda.gov/library/materials/food-security-survey-module-six-item-short-form (accessed January 13, 2021).

29. Yaroch AL, Tooze J, Thompson FE, Blanck HM, Thompson OM, Colón-Ramos U, et al. Evaluation of three short dietary instruments to assess fruit and vegetable intake: the National Cancer Institute's food attitudes and behaviors survey. J Acad Nutr Diet. (2012) 112:1570–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2012.06.002

30. SPSS Statistics. SPSS Statistics - Overview. (2020). Available online at: https://www.ibm.com/products/spss-statistics (accessed February 19, 2021).

31. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 15. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC (2017).

32. Mills S, Brown H, Wrieden W, White M, Adams J. Frequency of eating home cooked meals and potential benefits for diet and health: cross-sectional analysis of a population-based cohort study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. (2017) 14:109. doi: 10.1186/s12966-017-0567-y

33. Aune D, Giovannucci E, Boffetta P, Fadnes LT, Keum N, Norat T, et al. Fruit and vegetable intake and the risk of cardiovascular disease, total cancer and all-cause mortality-a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies. Int J Epidemiol. (2017) 46:1029–56. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyw319

34. Committee on National Statistics Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education Food and Nutrition Board National Research Council Institute of Medicine. Defining and Measuring Food Security. Research Opportunities Concerning the Causes and Consequences of Child Food Insecurity and Hunger: A Workshop Summary. National Academies Press (US) (2013). Available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK201388/ (accessed January 15, 2021).

35. Robaina KA, Martin KS. Food insecurity, poor diet quality, and obesity among food pantry participants in Hartford, CT. J Nutr Educ Behav. (2013) 45:159–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2012.07.001

36. Sanchez TW. Poverty, policy, and public transportation. Transp Res Part Policy Pract. (2008) 42:833–41. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2008.01.011

37. Duque V, Pilkauskas NV, Garfinkel I. Assets among low-income families in the Great Recession. PLoS ONE. (2018) 13:e0192370. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192370

38. Storey M, Anderson P. Income and race/ethnicity influence dietary fiber intake and vegetable consumption. Nutr Res. (2014) 34:844–50. doi: 10.1016/j.nutres.2014.08.016

39. Lucile M, de Lauzon-Guillain B, Labesse M, Nicklaus S. Food choice motives and the nutritional quality of diet during the COVID-19 lockdown in France. Appetite. 157:105005. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2020.105005

40. Hoy MK, Goldman JD, Moshfegh AJ. Differences in fruit and vegetable intake of U.S. adults by sociodemographic characteristics evaluated by two methods. J Food Compos Anal. (2017) 64:97–103. doi: 10.1016/j.jfca.2017.06.012

41. Leddy AM, Weiser SD, Palar K, Seligman H. A conceptual model for understanding the rapid COVID-19-related increase in food insecurity and its impact on health and healthcare. Am J Clin Nutr. (2020) 112:1162–9. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqaa226

42. Huff C, Tingley D. “Who are these people?” Evaluating the demographic characteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents. Res Polit. (2015) 2:2053168015604648. doi: 10.1177/2053168015604648

43. Coppock A, McClellan OA. Validating the demographic, political, psychological, and experimental results obtained from a new source of online survey respondents. Res Polit. (2019) 6:2053168018822174. doi: 10.1177/2053168018822174

44. Thompson FE, Subar AF. Chapter 1 - dietary assessment methodology. In: Coulston AM, Boushey CJ, Ferruzzi MG, Delahanty LM, editors. Nutrition in the Prevention and Treatment of Disease (Fourth Edition). Academic Press (2017). p. 5–48. Available online at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128029282000011 (accessed January 13, 2021).

Keywords: food security, coronavirus, food pantry, emergency food assistance, nutrition security

Citation: Bertmann F, Rogomentich K, Belarmino EH and Niles MT (2021) The Food Bank and Food Pantries Help Food Insecure Participants Maintain Fruit and Vegetable Intake During COVID-19. Front. Nutr. 8:673158. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2021.673158

Received: 26 February 2021; Accepted: 13 July 2021; Published: 06 August 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Bertmann, Rogomentich, Belarmino and Niles. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Farryl Bertmann, fbertman@uvm.edu

This article is part of the Research Topic

The Effects of the COVID-19 Outbreak on Food Supply, Dietary Patterns, Nutrition and Health: Volume 1

New farm-to-food relief program to benefit Bristol, Norfolk and Plymouth counties

Frogfoot Farm’s long-term future will be largely driven by volunteers willing to help stock local food pantries in three counties. 

Marion Institute Executive Director Liz Wiley said the goals for the first one or two years of the Wareham-based farm will be to build up the site, ultimately leading to the planting of traditional plants and vegetables to produce nutritious food for those in need. 

The Marion Institute’s new Neighbors Feeding Neighbors farm-to-food relief program focuses on how to help increase the amount of healthy, nutritious and culturally relevant food in food pantries and other area food relief programs, she said. 

“Our priority this year is to build up the infrastructure,” she said. “We just put a fence in in March all around the perimeter, and we are growing soil this year,” Wiley said. “Nutritious soil is our main focus.” 

How you can help 

After putting out a call to their followers asking for donations of gently used tools, they are asking volunteers to donate the tools they will need to begin to farm the land – everything from shovels, steel rakes, pitchforks, hoses and hand tools to wheelbarrows and garden carts. 

Wiley said they are applying for grants to get hoop houses, a greenhouse and proper propagation to allow them to start slowly but do it right. 

A.D. Makepeace is leasing two plots of land of approximately three acres each along with some building space to the Marion Institute and providing some support with soil building and irrigation, but the Marion Institute will fundraise and write grants for everything else that’s needed. 

The south field they are focusing on first has been planted with a cover crop of sudangrass for use as a soil builder to contribute to its overall health. Wiley said they are using regenerative farming and agro-ecology practices to bring back the soil and biodiversity around the farm. 

Food for three counties

Distribution of the food from the fields will be through area food pantries in Bristol, Plymouth and Norfolk counties representing more than 1,500 farmers with help from Damien's Food Pantry in Wareham and the South Shore Community Action Council in Plymouth. 

The Marion Institute runs the South Coast Food Policy Council program. Working with its Community Advisory Board consisting of about 30 food system stakeholders on the South Coast, from farmers to fishermen, food pantry leaders to institutional buyers, it conducted a food system assessment during the pandemic that was published it in 2021. 

Wiley said the report showed glaring weaknesses in the regional food system, and the goal is to represent different aspects of the food system and the geographic area from Wareham to Fall River. 

After spending three months studying the report and identifying 27 priorities, four working groups covering education, food insecurity, policy and capacity building were created to move the project forward while focusing on reducing the reliance on ultra processed foods. 

“In our food access working group, two of the main priorities were the lack of healthy, nutritious and culturally-relevant foods in food pantries since they just don’t get access to it, and a survey we did with consumers said that the hardest to get food items are fruit, vegetables, meat and dairy – all the basics,” she said. 

She said another glaring priority in southeastern Massachusetts is the need for a regional gleaning program. If a farmer is unable to harvest a crop because they don’t have the labor to work the field or a market to sell it to so it won’t go to waste in the field, they can call on trained volunteers who are gleaners to recover the food from the fields. 

“If a farmer calls and says I have a crop of butternut squash that I’m not going to harvest, they can call gleaners, and they would come and harvest that crop, and then all of that food would go into food relief,” Wiley said. 

Neighbors Feeding Neighbors volunteers and volunteers trained as gleaners or are interested in becoming gleaners could go to other farms in the area. 

All about the infrastructure 

In the first year of farm operations overseen by Farm Manager Hannah Traggis, they are working on the infrastructure. The six acres that have never been farmed and had never had a cranberry bog on it will remain as sandy soil. 

Frogfoot farmer Scott Codey said the cover crops that will be planted this year there will be a combination of buckwheat, sorghum, sudangrass, sun hemp and oats. 

Marion Institute Director of Food Access and Innovation Rita Higgins said there’s also a need for volunteers to help clear out a pocket of invasive plants. 

There are also berms around the edges where they will be creating pollinated gardens where bees will in the sand undisturbed. The berms will ultimately be a wind break with plantings of native hedgerow to offer protection from the wind.  

The core windbreak plants will likely be bayberry and beach plum that grow up to 10 feet in height, the core grasses will include little blue stem, lovegrass and switchgrass, and the flowery plants will be bergamot and yarrow.  

Higgins said Traggis will be working with the Freed Seed Federation based in Westport, a nonprofit that focuses on seed saving, seed trials of heirloom seed and the building up of native seed sources that are a New England ecotype.  

She said they are modeling the program after the Martha’s Vineyard Island Grown Initiative farm. Ultimately, they hope to plant up to 100 different species in the berms. 

Standard-Times staff writer Kathryn Gallerani can be reached at  [email protected] . Follow her on Twitter: @kgallreporter. Support local journalism by purchasing a digital or print subscription to The Standard-Times today.  

• Business News
• Michigan News
• National News
• International News
• Real Estate
• Local Sports
• Michigan Sports
• National Sports
• Local columns
• Letters to the Editor
• Engagements
• Special Sections
• Classifieds
• Garage Sales
• Statement of Values
• Terms of Service
• Submit News
• Browse Notices
• Place a Notice

• Today's Paper

Subscribe Today

Nonprofit supplies fresh produce to local food pantries.

R. R. Branstrom | Daily Press Planting with a Purpose founder Joe Pokladowski, left, and Tony’s Green Thumb co-owner Caroline Picard hold up a cucumber basket that has already sprouted flowers and cukes. Edible plants that Tony’s does not sell are donated to Pokladowski’s nonprofit and distributed to local food pantries.

BARK RIVER — Joseph Pokladowski, Jr. is the founder of Planting with a Purpose, a nonprofit that donates fresh produce to food pantries in the Escanaba area. It was modeled after the Green Bay-based Planting for a Purpose, which Pokladowski also helped kick off. While the Wisconsin initiative is a program that began through Brown County Community Gardens and Green Bay Packers Give Back, the Upper Peninsula equivalent is made possible by Tony’s Green Thumb and Pokladowski’s own farm, both of which are located in Bark River.

At present, Tony’s Green Thumb is owned by Caroline Picard; her husband, Pat Picard; and her brother, John Hahn. Jr. They have 17 greenhouses, but when Tony Quist started growing on the site, there was only one, and he was 10 years old. Quist said the operation grew every year.

Pokladowski said he has felt a tie with the business since he used to ride his bike to Tony’s as a kid, filling a wooden tray on the back with vegetables and flowers before pedaling back home to downtown Bark River.

Years later, Pokladowski was involved with community gardens in Green Bay, where he and others had recognized that at food pantries, there was a lack of fresh vegetables. People with food insecurity were given sustenance, but not proper nutrition.

“When you (are) down on your luck, you need a balanced diet that can support a healthy immune system and extra energy needed to cope with stressful events,” reads the Planting with a Purpose website.

According to Green Bay Packers Community Outreach Manager Amanda Wery, a formal proposal from what at the time was Brown County UW Extension reached the Packers in 2016 with a few concepts for a sort of “plant-a-row” program that would provide contributing gardeners with materials and information about donating a portion of their yields. That became Planting for a Purpose.

“Typically when we get involved with a program, we try to help bring awareness to it, get it up and going and then have it carry on,” Wery explained.

After gaining momentum thanks to funding from the Green Bay Packers Give Back and enthusiasm from people like Pokladowski, Planting for a Purpose continues to operate in Wisconsin.

Working just out of community gardens, though, means limited space.

“Three years ago, I started Planting with a Purpose,” said Pokladowski, pointing out that the different preposition in the name separates it from the other: Planting with a Purpose, a transparent 501(c)(3) nonprofit, is registered in Bark River and operates in the U.P.

“Majority of the food comes from up here, so I’m slowly transitioning up here,” said Pokladowski. He has a plot of 13 acres, plans to add another six this year, and keeps space at Tony’s Green Thumb, where he also works.

Tony’s Green Thumb donates all their produce that doesn’t sell — and they grow a wide variety, from artichokes to ghost peppers to 24 species of tomato — to the nonprofit, and Pokladowski distributes it to charities and people in need, like elderly neighbors who are unable to drive to the grocery store.

“We partner with him for the vegetables, and then for the flowers … Cindy Bedard has a crew of people that goes and actually donates all those flowers that are leftover. It could be the poor, it could be assisted living places,” said Caroline, pointing out that “need” can take different forms. They unofficially call the flower donation “Planting for a Reason.”

Pokladowski said that he appreciates Seventh-Day Adventist “because they’ll find a home for everything … When it’s about time for it to start going bad, they’ll put it next door to the nature store for people to grab for free.

“Paul’s Pantry in Green Bay does something similar,” Pokladowski added. “If it goes bad, they’ll give it to a pig farm, and the pig farm donates pork, so nothing goes to waste.”

He said that he’s been learning more about what can be done with food from members of the Hmong and Vietnamese population in Green Bay. “The first thing they’ll tell you is Americans are so wasteful,” Pokladowski said. “They’re taking tips of like, squash — you can sauté it. Or tips of the pea plant. It’s actually better and you don’t have to shell the peas.”

He added that he’s recently partnered with a chef from Rooted In Inc. to provide recipe ideas, since there are some vegetables people have limited knowledge around or are entirely unfamiliar with.

The first year of operation, Pokladowski said, Planting with a Purpose donated 386 pounds of produce. In 2022, they gave away 4,000 pounds. Last year, he reported, the total donated was 6,500 pounds — that’s three-and-a-quarter tons of fresh fruit and vegetables.

Pokladowski has over 200 young trees that, when mature, will bear apples, plums, peaches, apricots, pears and nectarines. He hopes to in the near future create a self-sustaining cider mill that will contribute to the mission.

At present, he just has a portion that is fenced-in. Last year, someone donated fencing, and the area increased. In addition to fencing and posts, farming equipment, supplies and unwanted plants and seeds are accepted for donation at Planting with a Purpose, 2792 F Rd., Bark River.

Extra hands during harvesting and planting times are useful, and Pokladowski encourages engagement online: Planting with a Purpose is active on Facebook, and the general website is plantingwithapurpose.com.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

• Daily Newsletter
• Breaking News

Reynolds to run for 108th state House seat

Despite snags, candidates speak at closed voter forum

Rep. Prestin introduces bill to re-establish natural resource advisory boards

State Rep. Dave Prestin has introduced a bill he said will help small businesses by fighting overregulation. The ...

Bird flu risk to deer ‘pretty low,’ DNR says

Reports of bird flu spreading to dairy cows prompted me to wonder: Could deer contract the disease as ...

House fire in Kipling

Starting at $2.99/week..

• Alzheimer's disease & dementia
• Arthritis & Rheumatism
• Attention deficit disorders
• Autism spectrum disorders
• Biomedical technology
• Diseases, Conditions, Syndromes
• Endocrinology & Metabolism
• Gastroenterology
• Gerontology & Geriatrics
• Health informatics
• Inflammatory disorders
• Medical economics
• Medical research
• Medications
• Neuroscience
• Obstetrics & gynaecology
• Oncology & Cancer
• Ophthalmology
• Overweight & Obesity
• Parkinson's & Movement disorders
• Psychology & Psychiatry
• Radiology & Imaging
• Sleep disorders
• Sports medicine & Kinesiology
• Vaccination
• Breast cancer
• Cardiovascular disease
• Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
• Colon cancer
• Coronary artery disease
• Heart attack
• Heart disease
• High blood pressure
• Kidney disease
• Lung cancer
• Multiple sclerosis
• Myocardial infarction
• Ovarian cancer
• Post traumatic stress disorder
• Rheumatoid arthritis
• Schizophrenia
• Skin cancer
• Type 2 diabetes
• Full List »

share this!

April 26, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

peer-reviewed publication

trusted source

What happens in the brain when we make decisions about money or food

by Anke Maes, Ruhr-Universitaet-Bochum

Neuroscience researchers from Bochum confirm different strategies when choosing between primary and secondary rewards. The lever is impulsivity.

People make decisions every day—from what to wear in the morning to what to watch on TV in the evening. But how do decisions differ when it comes to essential food and money? A neuroscientific research team at Ruhr University Bochum has investigated this question.

Led by Professor Burkhard Pleger from the Berufsgenossenschaftliches Universitätsklinikum Bergmannsheil, the team examined the mechanisms underlying human decision-making when it comes to so-called primary rewards such as food as opposed to secondary rewards such as money. The scientists also analyzed in which areas of the brain the different mechanisms can be located. The results of the study were published in the journal eNeuro .

Behavioral patterns and brain responses in the focus of research

Do people decide differently about French fries and strawberry cake than they do about money? This is exactly what scientists at Ruhr University Bochum investigated. They presented 28 test subjects according to their preference with French fries or schnitzel, strawberry cake or chocolate bars as well as money and let the test subjects choose whether they wanted to receive a certain amount of the item immediately or a larger amount at a later point in time.

In the experiment, the suggested waiting times were two days, two weeks, one, three and six months as well as one year. The longer the test subjects decided to wait, the larger the reward in terms of an increased amount of money or food. Throughout the study, the participants were placed in an MRI scanner that recorded the brain activity .

Value stability of money and perishability of food influence the choice

"We were able to show that decisions on food are made more impulsively. In other words, food that is immediately available is chosen more often than a larger quantity of the same food that is available later," explains first author Marius Markmann. "This is different with money. Here, people prefer to wait for the larger amount of money. This is because money is stable in value for longer, while the value of food is linked to the perishability of the food."

The observed differences were also reflected in brain activation during decision-making. "When choosing an amount of money, the human brain seems to involve regions that are responsible for monitoring actions. With food, on the other hand, brain regions that are important for decisions in the social environment become active," says Pleger, who is a Principal Investigator at the Research Department of Neuroscience at Ruhr University.

"However, the differences in the brain networks were less than we expected. This suggests that decisions about food and money follow similar processing patterns in the human brain."

Decision-making processes in connection with addictive behavior

Many studies have already shown that the human brain reacts differently to so-called primary rewards such as food than to secondary rewards such as money. How this is reflected in human behavior has been less researched to date. "We have found the lever in impulsivity: Primary rewards such as food lead to more impulsive decisions ," says Markmann, who works as a doctoral student in neurological research at the Universitätsklinikum Bergmannsheil.

"Our result fits in with the findings of other studies. Impulsive people showed weaker self-control and had larger calorie intake and a higher eating frequency. They were also more inclined to be addicted to the internet, social media, smartphones, gaming and gambling."

In this context, the researchers from Bochum also see the next interesting research question regarding human decision-making . "In people with addictive behavior, self-control over primary rewards is a critical issue," says Pleger. "If we could identify which specific decision-making processes play a role in addictive behavior , this could lead to novel behavioral therapeutic interventions."

Explore further

Feedback to editors

New research sheds light on the weakening immune response observed in older adults

5 minutes ago

Scientists discover potential biomarkers of environmental exposures in Parkinson's disease

31 minutes ago

Coordinating blood vessel activity may be associated with better brain performance

Researchers identify targets in the brain to modulate heart rate and treat depressive disorders

5 hours ago

Robotic nerve 'cuffs' could help treat a range of neurological conditions

Many children with symptoms of brain injuries and concussions are missing out on vital checks, national study finds

10 hours ago

Living at higher altitudes in India linked to increased risk of childhood stunting

16 hours ago

Study confirms effectiveness of bivalent COVID-19 vaccine

17 hours ago

How does aging start? Scientists explain how IgG antibodies are a driving factor

Study reveals emotional turmoil experienced after dog-theft is like that of a caregiver losing a child

18 hours ago

Related Stories

How the brain processes rewards

Jan 23, 2020

Study: Focusing immediately on the benefits of waiting might help people improve their self-control

Apr 5, 2024

Tracing the evolutionary origin of cognitive flexibility

Jun 16, 2023

'Hunger hormone' ghrelin affects monetary decision making

Mar 20, 2021

Key regulator of decision-making pinpointed in brain

Feb 19, 2024

Adolescent impatience increases as testosterone levels rise

May 16, 2017

Recommended for you

Study recommends exposing deaf children to sign language before and after cochlear implantation

Food in sight? The liver is ready in minutes: Study shows how adapting sugar metabolism starts in the brain

20 hours ago

Creatine found to improve cognitive performance during sleep deprivation

23 hours ago

Let us know if there is a problem with our content

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Medical Xpress in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

Food recalls reach highest level since the pandemic. Undeclared allergens are the biggest reason for the rise

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

Food recalls across the U.S. last year continued to rise following a drop during the pandemic, with nearly half due to undeclared allergens, according to a report released Thursday.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture — which regulates meat, poultry, and eggs — and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration — which regulates all other foods — recorded a total of 313 food recalls and public health alerts in 2023, according to the report published by Public Interest Research Group.

Public health alerts are issued for products with potential health risks but that cannot be recalled. For example, the product may be no longer available for purchase or the source of the food-borne illness had not been identified yet.

California retailers sold 139, or 44%, of last year’s recalled products, only second to New York retailers who sold 146 recalled products, according to PIRG consumer watchdog Teresa Murray. Texas followed California with 133 recalled products.

“New York, California and Texas are heavily populated states and they happen to be more culturally diverse,” she said. “With a lot of ethnic grocery stores and diverse populations, it’s not surprising.”

While FDA recalled roughly the same number of products every year since the pandemic, USDA issued 31% more recalls in 2023 compared to the previous year, according to the report. Some of that increase comes from the uptick in products found with undeclared allergens, which has been the leading cause for food recalls in recent years, Murray said.

A federal law passed in 2021 introduced sesame as the ninth allergen required on food labels at the start of 2023, the first time an allergen was added to the list in nearly 20 years . Other allergens on the list include milk, eggs, fish, and peanuts.

The addition of sesame coincided with a 27% increase in products found with undeclared allergens in 2023. But Murray said manufactures had ample time to prepare for the change. She blamed some recalls and health alerts to a lack of care and attention from manufacturers, emphasizing the importance of disclosing the presence of allergens in products to the American public, 6% of who have a food allergy .

“Allergens are serious. They can kill people,” she said. “The allergens are different from just a food intolerance that can give you an upset stomach.”

Snacks such as cookies, granola bars, candy and popcorn were the most commonly recalled food in 2023, most of which had undeclared allergens. Cantaloupe found with potential salmonella contamination and other fruits with potential listeria contamination were the next most commonly recalled foods.

Dozens of packaged foods recalled in listeria outbreak. Here’s what you need to know

Federal investigators have linked a particular listeria contamination to illnesses dating back to June 2014. Here’s a primer on the bacterium, what causes it and how it spreads.

Feb. 15, 2024

In February, Modesto-based Rizo Lopez Foods Inc. was found to be the source of an outbreak of listeria food poisoning dating back to 2014 that killed two people and sickened more than two dozen. The cheese and dairy company recalled all of its packaged goods, including various types of cotija cheese, yogurt and sour cream.

Last year’s food recall numbers are part of a natural upward trend back to pre-pandemic levels, Murray said. The dip in recalls in 2021 can be attributed to a multitude of reasons, including the closures of meat processors and restaurants as well as a decrease in food inspections , creating fewer opportunities for recalls.

“Without somebody noticing there’s a problem, you never get to the point of actually saying we have a product that we should recall,” Murray said.

Cutting down food recalls is as simple as reading the fine print, she added.

“They just need to care more,” Murray said.

More to Read

Federal government ‘believes’ virus found in grocery store milk is safe for consumption

April 24, 2024

783 million people face chronic hunger, yet the world wastes 19% of its food, U.N. says

March 27, 2024

Trader Joe’s recalls cashews potentially contaminated with salmonella

March 19, 2024

Start your day right

Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

Ashley Ahn is a 2023-24 reporting fellow at the Los Angeles Times. She has previously interned at CNN, USA Today, NPR and Foreign Policy Magazine. Ahn is from Georgia and a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania.

More From the Los Angeles Times

Henry Cervantes, Mexican American farmworker turned WWII fighter pilot, dies at 100

April 26, 2024

Six California House races that could help determine control of Congress

More migrant families with children sleeping in tents on Skid Row test official response

Metro board ponders facial recognition, other security measures after subway killing

April 25, 2024

Tyson's $12,500 grant boosts central Arkansas library system's 'Be Mighty' food program

by Daniela Dehaghani

LITTLE ROCK (KATV) — A new grant from northwest Arkansas' poultry giant, Tyson, is set to directly impact the Central Arkansas Library System's (CALS) “Be Mighty" program which connects many Arkansans to a reliable food resource.

The program currently operates out of eleven "Little Free Pantries" and two community refrigerators across the library system. Tyson Foods’ $12,500 investment on Thursday will allow the CALS to continually stock these resources.

Volunteers and local partners work together to deliver shelf-stable goods to the libraries and stock them throughout the week. Full pantries are usually empty by the next day.

The pantries all have 24-hour access and offer fruits, vegetables, snacks, and canned proteins; the fridges are stocked with fresh produce, dairy products, and other essentials.

The "Be Mighty" program partners with local food vendors to try and connect their patrons with fresh Arkansas foods, canned food goods, and other things like hygiene products. The program also offers after-school and summer meal programs at eleven different library branches throughout the summer months.

We spoke with Jessica Emerson who said, "The word is out that we are a reliable food resource and we like to pride ourselves on keeping the program stigma-free and no registration, so we don't require ID or even a library card for these services. Community members are able to come and take as they need. "

The library appreciates community involvement and takes pride in helping connect community members to these resources to expand their outreach.

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Cakes and drinks sweetener neotame can damage gut wall, scientists find

Industry’s sugar substitute E961 can have ‘toxic effect on health’, says study finding sweetener capable of damaging intestinal bacteria

A sweetener used in cakes, soft drinks and chewing gum can seriously damage people’s health by weakening the gut, a new study has found.

Consumption of even a small amount of the sweetener neotame can lead to someone starting to suffer irritable bowel syndrome, insulin resistance, and even sepsis, a condition that kills about 40,000 in Britain a year.

The findings underlined that some of a new generation of sweeteners that give food products a super-sweet taste can have a “toxic effect” on health, the researchers said.

Dr Havovi Chichger , the senior author of the study, said that while sweeteners could be a healthier alternative to sugar, some could harm consumers.

Neotame was developed in 2002 as a substitute for aspartame, a sweetener which has aroused concerns, and has become widely used in recent years in drinks and foodstuffs sold in the UK. It is often referred to as E961 on the list of ingredients found on labels of products.

Chichger, an associate professor at Anglia Ruskin University, and the study’s co-author, Dr Aparna Shil, of Jahangirnagar University, in Bangladesh, said neotame carried a threat to health because it could damage the intestine by causing “good bacteria” to become diseased and invade the gut wall. In the process that could lead to illness because the epithelial barrier, part of the gut wall, could break down.

They published their findings, which they said are the first to show that neotame can have that damaging impact on healthy gut bacteria, in the medical journal Frontiers in Nutrition .

Previous research, including by Chichger, found that other common sweeteners – such as saccharin, sucralose, and aspartame – can also have that harmful effect.

Chichger said: “There is now growing awareness of the health impacts of sweeteners such as saccharin, sucralose and aspartame, with our own previous work demonstrating the problems they can cause to the wall of the intestine and the damage to the ‘good bacteria’ which form in our gut.

“This can lead to a range of potential health issues including diarrhoea, intestinal inflammation, and even infections such as septicaemia if the bacteria were to enter the blood stream. Therefore, it is important to also study sweeteners that have been introduced more recently, and our new research demonstrates that neotame causes similar problems, including gut bacteria becoming diseased.”

The co-authors said further research was needed to look into “the toxic effects of some of the artificial sweeteners that have been developed more recently”, given their widespread use. Some of the newest sweeteners in use produce a sweet taste that is 1,000 times sweeter than sugar.

Even a low intake of neotame might be harmful, Chichger stressed. “Even when we studied neotame at very low concentrations, 10 times lower than the acceptable daily intake, we saw the breakdown of the gut barrier and a shift in bacteria to a more damaging behaviour, including increased invasion of healthy gut cells leading to cell death. This can be linked to issues such as irritable bowel diseases and sepsis,” she said.

The European Food Safety Authority ruled in 2007 that neotame was “safe for use”. It has since been approved for use in more than 35 countries. But Efsa is now reviewing the safety of neotame as part of what Chichger said is a series of evidence-based risk assessments which may lead to a reassessment of certain sweeteners.

• Food safety
• Soft drinks
• Irritable bowel syndrome
• Food & drink industry
• Health policy

Most viewed