Back

Home and wild food procurement was associated with greater intake of fruits and vegetables during the COVID-19 pandemic in northern New England

McCarthy, A. C.; Angle, A.; Bliss, S.; Bertmann, F. M.; Belarmino, E.; Rose, K.; Niles, M. T.

2024-05-03 nutrition
10.1101/2024.05.02.24306758 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveThis study examined the effect of home and wild food procurement (HWFP) activities (i.e., gardening, hunting, fishing, foraging, preserving food, raising livestock, and raising poultry for eggs) on food security status, fruit and vegetable intake, and meat consumption. DesignWe used data collected in 2021 and 2022 through two statewide representative surveys (n = 2,001). Dietary intake was assessed using the Dietary Screener Questionnaire. We analyzed the data using linear regression, logistic regression, and ordinal logistic regression models. SettingMaine and Vermont, United States Participants2,001 adults (18 years and older) ResultsSixty-one percent of respondents engaged in HWFP activities; the majority of those gardened. Households engaging in most individual HWFP activities had greater odds of being food insecure. HWFP engagement was positively associated with fruit and vegetable consumption. Specifically, gardening was associated with an additional one cup-equivalent in fruit and vegetable consumption per week compared to respondents that did not garden. Furthermore, when exploring these relationships disaggregated by food security status, we find that this effect is stronger for food insecure households than food secure households. Respondents from households that hunted were more likely to eat wild game meat and also consumed red and white meat more frequently compared to households that did not hunt. ConclusionOverall, our results indicate potential public health and food security benefits from engaging in HWFP activities. Future research should continue to examine a full suite of HWFP activities and their relationship to diet, health, and food security.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Public Health Nutrition
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
37.5%
2
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.6%
50% of probability mass above
3
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 4%
6.3%
4
The Journal of Nutrition
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
5
Nutrients
64 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.8%
6
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.9%
7
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
8
Frontiers in Nutrition
23 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.0%
9
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 44%
2.7%
10
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 45%
2.6%
11
Current Developments in Nutrition
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.1%
12
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
13
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
14
BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
15
European Journal of Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
16
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
32 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
17
Preventive Medicine Reports
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
18
Public Health
34 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
19
Annals of Epidemiology
19 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
20
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
21
Appetite
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
22
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%
23
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 78%
0.6%