Understanding Local Food Environments, Food Policies, and Food Terminology

Home , East Side (Manhattan), Upper East Side

A Study of Two NYC Neighborhoods

Understanding Local Food Environments, Food Policies, and Food Terminology 1 Understanding Local Food Environments, Food Policies, and Food Terminology

A Study of Two NYC Neighborhoods

With the increase in obesity and other diet- The Hunter College New York City Food related health issues and the persistence of food Policy Center conducted a short survey in insecurity among many vulnerable populations, East Harlem and the Upper East Side to explore the need for transformative changes to our food residents’ understanding of food insecurity, food systems and local food environments is critical. shopping and cooking behaviors, and awareness To improve population health, and the health of of relevant food policy issues. This survey was New York city residents, it is necessary to better performed to understand knowledge, attitudes, understand the differences and similarities and behaviors around food, and to inform across neighborhood food environments. policymaking that addresses food-related health inequities in New York City.

Understanding Local Food Environments, Food Policies, and Food Terminology 2 Suggested Citation:

Platkin C, Kwan A, Zarcadoolas C, Dinh-Le C, Hou N, Cather A. Understanding Local Food Environments, Food Policies, and Food Terminology: A Study of Two NYC Neighborhoods. Hunter College New York City Food Policy Center, Hunter College, 2018.

Available at: http://www.nycfoodpolicy.com /understandinglocalfoodenvironments

Acknowledgements:

We thank the New York City Council and Hunter College for their continued support. We also thank the Hunter College Nutrition Department, the 2015-2016 Hunter College nutrition students for administering this survey and the East Harlem and the Upper East Side communities for their participation. We also thank Amy Ackermann for designing this report. All views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of those we interviewed, the City Council, Hunter College or the City University of New York.

Hunter College New York City Food Policy Center 3 What is Food Insecurity?

The USDA defines food insecurity as the “limited didn’t last and they didn’t have money to get or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate more; and they couldn’t afford to eat balanced and safe foods or limited or uncertain ability to meals. This is distinct from hunger, which can be acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable a consequence of food insecurity and refers to ways.”¹ The USDA further adds that households the physiological sensation, as opposed to the that are food insecure report three conditions: economic and social context associated with worrying whether their food would run out before food insecurity. being able to buy more; the food they bought

In 2014, 1.37 million New Yorkers Currently, nearly 1.8 million low-income (16.4%) reported being food insecure.² New Yorkers rely on food assistance from This percentage climbs to nearly 20% the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance in Brooklyn and the Bronx. Program (SNAP) (former, “food stamps”).³

How is the City of New York Working to Improve Food Environments?

The city of New York is working to ensure and Shop Healthy NYC, work with community its residents have enough nutritious food to members to support access to adequate and eat through various initiatives in partnership healthy grocery store options among vulnerable with local community-based and nonprofit populations. Additionally, NYC Food Standards organizations. aim to create healthier workplaces by setting nutritional restrictions and minimums to improve Current initiatives in New York City that address dietary intake of foods purchased and served by food insecurity/hunger include educational all New York City agencies. nutrition programs for children in preschools and at farmers’ markets, mobile food carts to While there are numerous programs and ini- increase access to fresh produce in underserved tiatives in place that address hunger and food communities, and additional financial assistance insecurity, there is a lack of understanding of for fresh fruits and vegetables at farmers’ mar- what community residents think about food, kets. Partnership programs, such as FRESH food policy, and food insecurity.

Understanding Local Food Environments, Food Policies, and Food Terminology 4 people participated in the study. Of these, 183 Methods were from EH and 130 from UES.

The Center conducted a short quantitative sur- The Center selected these street corners for vey in two New York City neighborhoods: East survey recruitment based on pedestrian traffic Harlem (EH) and the Upper East Side (UES). data collected by the City of New York and the Hunter College research assistants did on-street Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Along intercept interviews (i.e., subway stops and East 86th Street, for example, foot traffic can street corners with heavy foot traffic) in East reach 3,000 people per hour. Similarly, the foot Harlem (zip codes of 10029, 10035) and the traffic on East 68th Street, near Hunter College, Upper East Side (zip codes of 10021, 10028, ranges between 2,500-3,500 people per hour 10044, 10065, 10075, 10128), and asked during midday and evening hours. While East individuals who passed by to participate in a Harlem has less foot traffic than the Upper East survey (Figure 1). Those who expressed interest Side, 125th Street (a major commercial street) were read a consent form, gave verbal consent, sees approximately 1,000-1,500 people per and completed the survey by hand. In total, 313 hour during evening peak hours.

Figure 1: Map of recruitment locations for survey Hunter College New York City Food Policy Center 5 79% 50% 44% 31% 29% 26% 13% 13% 12% 9% 7% 6% 4% 3% 2% 2% Demographics Education – City Data (Figure 2) Asian Black Hispanic Other White Two or more races

NYC DATA⁴ NYC CHP-UES CHP-EH 82%

The following are data taken from the New York City Community Health 41% 39% 38% 36%

Profiles (CHP), as well as from the 2010 79%

Census (Figures 2-4). 26% 20% 15% ⁴ Data taken from Community Health Profiles and 2010 3% Census. Data for50% Race and Ethnicity - City Data tables 44% do not add to 100% because Hispanic was reported

31% separately in 2010 Census. 29% High school or less High school graduate College graduate 26% or some college 13% 13% 12% 9% 7% 6% 4% 3% 2% 2% NYC CHP-UES CHP-EH Race/Ethnicity – City Data (Figure 3) Asian Black Hispanic Other White Two or more races

NYC CHP-UES CHP-EH 79% 50% 44% 79% 31% 29% 26% 13% 13% 12% 9% 7% 6% 50% 4% 3% 2% 2% 44% 31% 29%

26% Asian Black Hispanic Other White Two or more races 13% 13% 12% 9%

7% NYC CHP-UES CHP-EH 6% 4% 3% 2% 2% Age – City Data (Figure 4)

Asian Black Hispanic Other White Two or more races

NYC CHP-UES CHP-EH 38% 32% 31% 24% 24% 23% 22% 22% 18% 14% 12% 12% 11% 11% 5%

0-17 18-24 25-44 45-64 65+ NYC CHP-UES CHP-EH

Understanding Local Food Environments, Food Policies, and Food Terminology 6 college educated, and only 3% without a high WHAT WE FOUND school degree).⁵

The majority of the Upper East Side respondents The majority of East Harlem respondents were white (82%) and college educated (83%). were black (32%) or Hispanic (45%). Only 5% of respondents held a high school One-quarter (25%) were college educated. degree or less. Nearly three-quarters of Over three-quarters (81%) had an income of respondents (74%) reported an income of less than $50,000, and 45% participated $50,000 or more. Nearly all of the Upper in some government assistance program. East Side respondents (95%) indicated they The East Harlem Community Health Profile did not participate in a Women, Infants and reports 81% of residents in East Harlem as Children (WIC) or government food assistance black or Hispanic. The CHP also indicates 26% program. These figures mirror the official de- held less than a high school degree, while our mographics in NYC’s Community Health Profile survey indicated 43% of respondents held (CHP) of the Upper East Side (79% white, 82% only a high school degree or less.⁶

Age (Figure 5)

Upper East Side East Harlem 18-24 10% 8% 8% 8% 18-24 2518-34-24 6% 6% 18-24 18-24 10% 10% 5% 5% 21% 21% 16% 20%25-34 3525-44-34 25-34 25-34 16% 16% 20% 20% 14% 14% 35-44 4535-54-44 35-44 35-44

45-54 45-54 13% 45-54 5545-64-54 13% 13% 17% 17% 22% 22% 20% 55-64 55-64 20% 20%55-64 6555-74-64 13% 13% 13% 65-74 75+65-74 15% 15% 65-74 65-74

Race / Ethnicity (Figure 6)

Upper East Side East Harlem 3% 8% 5% 12% 3% 3% 8% 5% 3% 8% 12% Asian Asian 5% 4% 3% 12% 3% Asian Asian 1% 4% Asian Asian 3% 1% Black 4% Black 1% 1% 3% Black Black Black 3% Black Black 1% Hispanic Hispanic 1% Black 33% Black Hispanic Hispanic Hispanic Hispanic 33% Mixed 33% Mixed Hispanic White Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed Hispanic White 45% Other Hispanic82% Other White 45% Other 82% Other 45% Other 82% Other White White White White White White

Hunter College New York City Food Policy Center 7 Education (Figure 7)

Upper East Side East Harlem

5% 5% 5% 10% 10% 10% 12% 12% 12% High school or less HighHigh school school or lessor less High schoolHigh school or less or less High school or less 15% 15% High school 15% High school High school Post- Post- Post- Some college Some Somecollege college Some college or less Some college or less Some college or less graduate graduate graduate 44% 44% 44% College graduate 48% CollegeCollege graduate graduate 48% CollegeCollege graduate graduate 48% College graduate 35% 35% Post-graduate 35% PostPost-graduate-graduate Post-graduatePost-graduate Post-graduate 31% 31% 31%

Household Income (Figure 8)

Upper East Side East Harlem

$90,000+ $90,000+ 55% 55% $90,000+ 6%$90,000+ 6% $70,000 - $89,999 $70,000 11%- $89,999 11% $70,000 - $89,999 $70,0006% - $89,999 6% $50,000 - $69,999 $50,0009% - $69,999 9% $50,000 - $69,999 $50,0008% - $69,999 8% $30,000 - $49,999 $30,000 - $49,99913% 13% $30,000 - $49,999 $30,000 - $49,99920% 20% $10,000 - $29,999 $10,0007% - $29,999 7% $10,000 - $29,999 $10,000 - $29,999 31% 31% $0 - $9,999 4%$0 - $9,999 4% $0 - $9,999 $0 - $9,999 27% 27%

WIC and SNAP Participation (Figure 9)

Upper East Side East Harlem 3% 1% 4% 4% 3% 1% 3% 1% 4% 4% 4% 4%

No participation No participation No participation No participation No participation No participation No SNAP SNAP SNAP SNAP SNAP SNAP SNAP SNAP No participation SNAP No 38% WIC WIC participation participation 38% WIC 55% WIC 38% No WIC WIC 55% 55% No WIC & SNAP participation WIC & SNAP No WIC & SNAP WIC & SNAP WIC & SNAP WIC & SNAP participation 95% participation 95% 95%

Understanding Local Food Environments, Food Policies, and Food Terminology 8 Residents in East Harlem and the Upper East Side Cook at Home

WHAT WE FOUND WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT

East Harlem respondents The fact that a greater proportion of WIC/SNAP recipients reported cooking more meals cooked at home nearly every day compared to non- at home, nearly every day recipients is significant because it counters the myth that (54%), than respondents in low-income people eat too much fast food and therefore the Upper East Side (45%). choose to be unhealthy. ⁷, ⁸ Approximately 85% of respondents in both neighbor- These data support evidence that low-income families and hoods cook at home, at least WIC/SNAP recipients cook at home. A study by Share Our 2-3 times a week (Figure 10). Strength’s Cooking Matters program found that a vast majority of low-income families cooked at home at least five nights A greater proportion of WIC/ a week.⁹ Studies have also shown that home cooking is linked SNAP recipients (61%) cook to benefits such as generally positive effects on health and at home nearly every day, BMI.¹⁰ In addition, it is worth noting that respondents from compared to those not partic- East Harlem were more likely to cook every day than those ipating in any program (46%) from the Upper East Side. This may reflect the fact that fast- (Figure 11). food consumption rises as income rises.

How often do you cook meals at home (not including reheating takeout)? BY PROGRAM PARTICIPATION

By Neighborhood (Figure 10) By Program Participation (Figure 11) 82% Every Day or Nearly Every Day Every Day or Nearly Every Day 82% 54% 61% 45% 46% 41% 39% 38%

2-3 Times per Week 2-3 Times per Week 36% 41% 39% 38% 26%

32% 25% 36% 20% 15% 39% 39%26% 20% 15% Once per Week Once per Week3%

7% 6% 3% 6% High school7% or less High school graduate College graduate Once or Twice per Month Once or Twice perHigh Month schoolor some or less collegeHigh school graduate College graduate 1% 1% or some college

85% 2% UES EH 1% NYC No program WIC/SNAP

79% UES EH

Almost85% Never UES EH Almost Never NYC No program WIC/SNAP

79% UES EH 6% 7% 9% 8% 45% 42% 45% 35% 35% 42% 35% 35%

Hunter College New23% York City Food Policy Center 9 20% 19% 23% 10% 20% 19% 5% 3% 10% 5% 3%

Never true Often true Sometimes true Never true Often true Sometimes true Never true Often true Sometimes true Never true Often true Sometimes true Food Shopping Behaviors in EH and UES

When you shop for fruits and vegetables, what's most important to you? (Figure 12)

WHAT WE FOUND EH UES 1 Quality Fruits 1 Quality Fruits 54% 72% Most respondents in both neighborhoods pur- and Vegetables and Vegetables chased fruit and vegetables from grocery stores and farmers’ markets, and ranked quality as the most important factor when buying produce. However, 30% of East Harlem residents considered price the second key factor in purchasing fruit and vegetables, and convenience as the third (7%). Conversely, 15% of Upper East Side respondents considered convenience the second most important factor and price as the third (12%) (Figure 12).

The two neighborhoods differed in food and shopping behaviors. More respondents in East Harlem reported shopping at bodegas and food pantries than respondents in the Upper East Side (17% vs. 6%, respectively).

WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT 2 Price 30% Differences in food and shopping behaviors between the two neighborhoods suggest varying levels of access to fresh, affordable produce. Our findings show that quality of food was 2 Location / important to both East Harlem and Upper East 15% Convenience Side respondents; however, price was more of a concern for East Harlem respondents while convenience was more important to Upper East Side respondents. Studies show that the availability 3 Lots of choices of markets with healthy food options does not 7% in all foods 3 Price guarantee that community members will shop 12% there.¹¹ The needs of East Harlem residents 4 Location / 7% suggest that future food access reforms should Convenience not only focus on building supermarkets but also 4 Lots of choices 5 Other/Not Sure ensuring that prices are affordable. 2% 2% in all foods 6 Organic (1%) 5 Other/Not Sure (1%)

Understanding Local Food Environments, Food Policies, and Food Terminology 10 EH and UES Residents’ Experiences With Food Insecurity

WHAT WE FOUND Within the past 12 months, I/we worried whether our food would run out before East Harlem respondents reported higher rates we got money to buy more: (Figure 13) of food insecurity: 65% of East Harlem respondents reported to have worried about running out of food before being able to buy more food in the past year, compared to 22% of respon- 85% UES EH dents in the Upper East Side (Figure 13). Over 79% UES EH half (58%) of East Harlem respondents said that within the last year, the food they bought

sometimes or often didn’t last or they didn’t have 45% 42% 35%

money to get more, compared to only 15% of 35%

the Upper East Side respondents23% (Figure 14). 20% 19% 10% 5% 3% WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT Never true Often true Sometimes true Never true Often true Sometimes true Literature shows that food insecurity is associated with poor health and health outcomes; more expensive and healthier Within the past 12 months, the food diets result in better health outcomes for we bought just didn't last and we didn't higher-socioeconomic populations.¹¹ have money to get more: (Figure 14)

Lower-socioeconomic groups tend to have lower-quality diets and higher rates of obesity,

cardiovascular disease, and diabetes.¹² Other 85% UES EH studies have linked these poorer health out- 79% UES EH comes and risk factors to the lack of access to fruits and vegetables.¹³ The long term effects

of food insecurity are also significant, especially 45% 42% 35% during childhood development and pregnancy.¹⁴ 35%

Knowledge of negative health outcomes related 23% 20% to food insecurity in lower-income communities 19% 10% should encourage policymakers to advocate for 5% 3% more reforms in this critical area.

Never true Often true Sometimes true Never true Often true Sometimes true

Hunter College New York City Food Policy Center 11 Experiences with Food Insecurity Among SNAP and WIC Beneficiaries

WHAT WE FOUND WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT

When asked the question While there are still many barriers to improving the nutrition about whether, in the past 12 status of SNAP participants,¹⁵ it is important to note that the months, they worried if their largest population of SNAP recipients is made up of children and food would run out before they families with children. Among these households, across the US, got money to buy more, those SNAP recipient households with children have food insufficiency receiving WIC, SNAP, or both rates of 9.4%, while households not on SNAP have a rate of benefits had higher rates of 6.9%.¹⁶ These food insufficiencies can lead to higher likelihoods food insecurity, compared to of food insecurity and health problems for children in SNAP respondents not participating households compared to non SNAP households.¹⁴ Improving the in any program. nutrition status of SNAP participants is clearly important for preventing the long-term health effects of food insecurity.

Experience of food insecurity within the past 12 months (Figure 15)

Recieving SNAP, WIC, or both: Not participating in any program:

Never true Never true 23% 23% Sometimes true Sometimes true 29% 29% Sometimes true Sometimes true 46% 46%

Never true Never true Often true 65%Often true 65% Often true Often true 6% 6% 31% 31%

Understanding Local Food Environments, Food Policies, and Food Terminology 12 Less than Half of EH and UES Respondents Know the Definition of Food Insecurity

WHAT WE FOUND WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT

The Center asked respondents, “If you heard someone say, ‘Many Given the high rates of food people who live in NYC are food insecure’, what would that mean insecurity in East Harlem, to you?” Overall, there was a general misunderstanding of what and across the City, it is not food insecurity means. Over one-quarter (27%) of East Harlem only important to address respondents were unsure of the definition, and 7% did not disparities in food access and believe it meant anything. Meanwhile, nearly one-quarter (22%) affordability, but also to ensure of respondents in the UES were unsure of the definition, and that policymakers, community 16% reported food security “didn’t mean anything.” The rest of members and residents have respondents associated “food insecurity” with food security, food a shared understanding of waste, food spoilage, or eating disorders. Indeed, only close to what food insecurity means. one-third (31%) of East Harlem respondents defined a person who Researchers have shown that is “food insecure” as “a person who cannot obtain food due to lack there are several definitions of of money,” compared to only 45% of UES respondents. what having enough food means Respondents in both East Harlem and the Upper East Side, among a group of those who however, demonstrated an understanding of basic nutritional are food insecure.¹⁷,¹⁸ These education. The majority of respondents agreed to the statements differences in understanding, that “eating fruit and vegetables can prevent disease,” and “eating even among the food insecure, mostly fried, fatty, or sugary foods can make you sick.” But suggest the need for more more East Harlem respondents disagreed that eating fruit and emphasis on food education, vegetables can help prevent disease (9% vs. 2% in the Upper including common terminology, East Side). (Figure 16) There was also general consensus among in NYC communities. To achieve all respondents that some people do not have access to healthy comprehensive change, it is food because healthy food is expensive, or there are few places to essential that all stakeholders buy healthy foods in their neighborhood. are on the same page.

Hunter College New York City Food Policy Center 13 If you heard someone say, "Many people who live in NYC are 'food insecure'," what would that mean to you? (Figure 16)

East Harlem

31% Someone who can't get 10% Someone who 9% A person who has enough food for wastes food enough food due to lack of money an active and healthy lifestyle

8% A person who has a 7% It does mental issue around eating not mean 27% I am not sure anything

8% Food goes bad and has to be thrown away

Upper East Side

6% Someone who 45% Someone who can't get 22% I am not sure has enough food enough food due to lack of money for an active and healthy lifestyle

5% Food goes bad and has to be thrown away

16% It does not 4% A person who mean anything has a mental issue around eating

2% A person who wastes food

Understanding Local Food Environments, Food Policies, and Food Terminology 14 EH and UES Residents See Government Role in Improving Food Safety, SNAP Benefits, and Farmer’s Markets

WHAT WE FOUND WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT

The Center asked respondents to select from a This finding illustrates the importance of list one issue that they think could be helped by a understanding what issues community members food policy, food law, or governmental funding. Of think can be helped by a food policy, food law, all the issues, both neighborhoods selected food or governmental funding. The participation of safety first (35% in the Upper East Side and 27% community residents in policymaking processes in East Harlem), followed by a lack of farmers’ is crucial. Of note, we see a lot of policymaking markets (16% in the Upper East Side, 24% in East emphasis currently on the availability of Harlem). Improved and expanded SNAP benefits supermarkets and grocery stores but this may came in a close third, with 16% concerned in be less of a priority to residents than food safety, the Upper East Side and 20% in East Harlem. access to farmer’s markets, and improved SNAP Respondents also see a role for government in benefits. With limited resources, government regulating foods high in salt and sugar served at and policymakers should perhaps focus first on restaurants. Lack of fresh produce and groceries areas where community members think they can nearby and diabetes in the community were have most impact. among the lowest rated (Figure 17).

Which of theWhich following of the following do you dothink you couldthink could be helped be helped by aby food a policy, foodfood law, policy, or government food law, or government funding? (Figurefunding: 17) Figure 17

Unsafe food (spoiled, contaminated, 27% Unsafe food (spoiled, contaminated, or dangerous) or dangerous) 35% 24% NotNot enough enough farmer's farmer's marketsmarkets in NYC 16% 3% NoNo supermarket supermarket oror grocerygrocery store nearby 9% Lack fruits & vegetables in my hood 10% Lack fruits & vegetables in my hood 4% 20% ImprovedImproved and and more more SNAPSNAP benefits 16% Foods with too much salt and sugar at

12%85% UES EH Foods with too much salt and sugar at restaurants/fastrestaurants/fast food

79% UES EH

13% 85% UES EH

79% UES EH 4% DiabetesDiabetes in in my community 6% 45% 42% 45% 35% 35% Hunter College New York City Food Policy Center 42% 15 35% 35% 23% 20% 19% 23% 10% 20% 19% 5% 3% 10% 5% 3%

Never true Often true Sometimes true Never true Often true Sometimes true Never true Often true Sometimes true Never true Often true Sometimes true What do EH and UES Residents Think About Food Policy and Practice?

WHAT WE FOUND

The Center also asked respondents whether support the law mandating chain restaurants they were in favor of, opposed, or weren’t sure display calorie content on menus. about various food policies. Respondents in both neighborhoods expressed support for Proposals for government restrictions revealed government programs that would increase more differences of opinion among residents. access to healthy foods. Free school lunches In the Upper East Side, 55% of respondents and summer lunches for children and discounts approved of a “sugar tax” - a government tax on for low-income New Yorkers at farmers’ candy, soda, cake and chips to reduce eating markets garnered overwhelmingly positive these foods - while 32% opposed it. In East responses (range of 72% - 90% ‘in favor’ for Harlem, there was a roughly even split of around both neighborhoods). 40% of those who supported the proposal and those who opposed it. Over half (54%) Respondents also showed support for greater of Upper East Side respondents agreed with availability of food labeling information. The a hypothetical fast food toy ban, while 27% majority were in favor of a law mandating opposed it. In East Harlem, respondents again warning labels for high-sodium foods; however, displayed a roughly even split (38% in favor; East Harlem respondents supported high-salt 33% against). Among all respondents, 25% warning labels (83%) at a higher rate than those were unsure of how they felt about the fast-food in the Upper East Side (75%). More than 80% toy ban (Figure 18).

WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT

Understanding support (or lack thereof) towards where they have been enacted to inform future food policies among community residents is local initiatives in these areas. crucial for effective policymaking. Of those sur- veyed here, most policies are widely supported Finally, as recent literature shows, the influence by overwhelming majorities in both a low- and a of some legislation such as calorie labeling high-income neighborhood. This demonstrates has yet to demonstrate the desired effects on a very high interest in and support of legislating food consumption and purchasing behavior on meaningful food policy that improves community a population level.¹⁹ This is in spite of overall health and well-being for all New Yorkers. wide approval for such policy changes. As such, future research can build on these findings by For those policies with relatively lower support examining in further depth the attitudes towards (banning fast food toys and the “sugar tax”), it and perceptions of different food policies. will be important to monitor the success in cities

Understanding Local Food Environments, Food Policies, and Food Terminology 16 79% 79% 79% 50% 50% 50% 44% 44% 44% 31% 31% 31% 29% 29% 29%

26% 26% 26% Figure 18 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 12% 12% 12% 9% 9% 9% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

Asian AsianBlack BlackHispanicAsian HispanicOtherBlack OtherHispanicWhite % ofTwo RespondentsWhite or Othermore racesTwo orin moreSupportWhite races of EachTwo orFood more Policyraces

Total Sample TotalUES SampleEH UES EHTotal Sample UES EH Banning of fast-food restaurants from giving away toys with unhealthy meals

Proposed in NYC²⁰; implemented in other cities such as San Francisco²¹

The City will provide free lunches to all children regardless of family income

Implemented²²

Chain restaurants must show calories on menus and signs

Implemented²³

The Mayor and City Council charges an additional tax on candy, soda, cake, and chips to reduce eating these foods – "the sugar tax"

Ruled against in NYC²⁴; implemented in other cities such as Philadelphia and Berkley²⁵

Program that provides discounts to low-income New Yorkers to buy fruits and vegetables at farmer's markets

Implemented²⁶

Law that makes sure kids have free lunch during the summer in all NYC neighborhoods

Implemented²⁷,²⁸

NYC law where restaurants must give warnings if foods have high amount of salt

Implemented²⁹ - NYC is the first city in the nation to require chain restaurants to post warning labels next to menu items that contain high levels of sodium

Hunter College New York City Food Policy Center 17 What Can We Learn from the EH/UES Survey?

The goal of the East Harlem/Upper East Side to additional neighborhoods throughout New survey was to begin the conversation on knowledge, York City. behaviors, perceptions, and understanding about food, food insecurity, and food policies, The Center will use findings from this survey among residents of two disparate New York City and future research to develop a glossary of neighborhoods. The survey enabled the Hunter food-related keywords, and keyphrases by College New York City Food Policy Center to gain examining survey responses about food and insight about which aspects of the food system food-related issues (e.g. hunger, food safety, are most important to residents at the community food choices, fast food, food-related chronic level, and to highlight the needs and perspectives of disease) from both neighborhoods. This community members around food issues. inventory glossary will be refined iteratively throughout subsequent phases of research. The EH/UES survey can be used as a starting Once the Center has a deeper understanding off point to further examine language around around the language of food, it can help food and how people perceive and discuss food community-based organizations, academics, issues and policies in their specific communities. social entrepreneurs and policymakers have It would also be interesting to expand the study greater impacts in their communities.

Understanding Local Food Environments, Food Policies, and Food Terminology 18 References

1. United States Department of Agriculture. Food Security in the 16. Gundersen C, Kreider B, Pepper JV. Partial identification meth- US: Measurement.https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nu- ods for evaluating food assistance programs: A case study of trition- assistance/food-security- in-the-us/measurement/. the causal impact of SNAP on food insecurity. American Journal Accessed July 8, 2017. of Agricultural Economics. 2017;99(4):875-893. doi:10.1093/ 2. The City of New York Food Policy. Food Metrics Report 2016. ajae/aax026 http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/foodpolicy/downloads/pd- 17. Hamelin A, Beaudry M, Habicht J. Characterization of household f/2016-Food- Metrics-Report.pdf.Accessed August 15, 2017. food insecurity in Québec: food and feelings. Social Science 3. NYC Department of Social Services, Human Resources & Medicine. 2002;54(1):119-132. doi:10.1016/s0277- Administration. HRA Facts. https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/hra/ 9536(01)00013-2 downloads/pdf/facts/hra_facts/2017/hra_facts_2017_04.pdf. 18. Connell CL, Lofton KL, Yadrick K, Rehner TA. Children’s experi- Accessed August 15, 2017. ences of food insecurity can assist in understanding its effect on 5. King L, Hinterland K, Dragan KL, Driver CR, Harris TG, Gwynn their well-being. The Journal of Nutrition. 2005;135(7):1683- RC, Linos N, Barbot O, Bassett MT. Community Health Profiles 90. 2015, Manhattan Community District 8: Upper East Side; 19. Kiszko KM, Martinez OD, Abrams C, Elbel B. The influence of 2015; 8(59):1-16. Available at: http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/ calorie labeling on food orders and consumption: a review of the doh/downloads/pdf/data/2015chp-mn8.pdf literature. J Community Health. 2014;39(6):1248-1269. 6. King L, Hinterland K, Dragan KL, Driver CR, Harris TG, Gwynn 20. Dahl M. There's a Solid Case for Fast-Food- Toy Restric- RC, Linos N, Barbot O, Bassett MT. Community Health Pro- tions. 22 August 2014. Available at http://nymag.com/scienceo- files 2015, Manhattan Community District 11: East Harlem; fus/2014/08/theres-a- solid-case- for-banning- fast-food- toys. 2015;11(59):1-16. Available at: http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/ html. Accessed August 8, 2017. doh/downloads/pdf/data/2015chp-mn11.pdf 21. CBS News. Fast-Food Toy Ban Gets OK in San Francisco. 5 7. Zagorsky JL, Smith P. No, poor people don't eat the October 2010. Available at https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ most fast food. 12 July 2017. Available at http://www.cnn. fast-food- toy-ban- gets-ok- in-san- francisco/. Accessed July com/2017/07/12/health/poor-americans- fast-food- partner/ 29, 2017. index.html. Accessed August 4, 2017. 22. Jackson A. The Largest School District in the US Just Started 8. Wolff-Mann E. Fast Food and Poverty Link a Myth, Says CDC Offering Free Lunch for All 1.1 Million Students. 6 September Study. 22 September 2015. Available at http://time.com/mon- 2017. Available at http://www.businessinsider.com/free-lunch- ey/4044292/no-poor- people-do- not-eat- more-fast- food/. for-all- students-new- york-city- 2017-9. Accessed October 3, Accessed August 3, 2017. 2017. 9. Meyer D. Wait. So People Are Cooking? 1 February 2012. Avail- 23. Rosenbloom S. Calorie Data to be Posted at Most Chains. able at https://bittman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/wait- 23 March 2010. Available at http://www.nytimes. so- people-are- cooking/?mcubz=3. Accessed August 3, 2017. com/2010/03/24/business/24menu.html.Accessed August 5, 10. Mills S, White M, Brown H, et al. Health and social determinants 2017. and outcomes of home cooking: A systematic review of observa- 24. Mandaro L. Nation’s First Soda Tax is Passed. 5 November tional studies. Appetite. 2017;111:116-134. doi:10.1016/j. 2015. Available at https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/na- appet.2016.12.022 tion-now/2014/11/05/berkeley- passes-soda-tax/18521923/. 11. Ghosh-Dastidar B, Cohen D, Hunter G, Zenk, SN, Huang C, Accessed August 30, 2017. Beckman R, & Dubowitz, T. Distance to store, food prices, 25. Lee BY. 5 More Locations Pass Soda Taxes: What’s Next for Big and obesity in urban food deserts. American Journal of Preven- Soda? 14 November 2016. Available at https://www.forbes. tive Medicine. 2014;47(5):587-595. doi:10.1016/j.ame- com/sites/brucelee/2016/11/14/5-more- locations-pass-soda- pre.2014.07.005 taxes-whats-next-for-big-soda/#2dedae29ed19. Accessed 12. Darmon N, Drewnowski A. Contribution of food prices and August 30, 2017. diet cost to socioeconomic disparities in diet quality and 26. Healthy People 2020. Improving Access to Fresh Fruits and health: a systematic review and analysis. Nutrition Reviews. Vegetables in New York City. 15 December 2016. Available at 2015;73(10):643-660. doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuv027 https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/healthy-people- in- ac- 13. Fish CA, Brown JR, Quandt SA. African American and Latino tion/story/improving-access-to-fresh-fruits-and-vegetables-in- low-income families’ food shopping behaviors: promoting fruit new-york- city. Accessed August 30, 2017. and vegetable consumption and use of alternative healthy 27. City of New York. Find a Summer Meals Program. 2017. food options. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health. Available at http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/4061/ 2013;17(2):498-505. doi:10.1007/s10903-013-9956- 8 find-a- summer-meals- program. Accessed September 1, 2017. 14. Laraia BA. Food insecurity and chronic disease. Advances in Nu- 28. School Food NYC. Lunch is Now Free for All NYC Public School trition: An International Review Journal. 2013; 4(2):203-212. Students. Available at http://www.schoolfoodnyc.org/freelunch/ doi:10.3945/an.112.003277 freelunch.htm. Accessed October 1, 2017. 15. Leung CW, Hoffnagle, EE, Lindsay AC, et al. A qualitative 29. NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Sodium study of diverse experts’ views about barriers and strategies Initiatives. Available at https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/health/ to improve the diets and health of Supplemental Nutrition health-topics/national- salt-reduction- initiative.page. Accessed Assistance Program (SNAP) beneficiaries. J Acad Nutr Diet. September 1, 2017. 2013;113(1):70-76.

Hunter College New York City Food Policy Center 19 About the Hunter College New York City Food Policy Center

The Hunter College New York City Food Policy sustainable food environments and to use food to Center develops intersectoral, innovative and promote community and economic development. evidence-based solutions to preventing diet- Through interdisciplinary research, policy analysis, related diseases and promoting food security in evaluation, and education, we leverage the New York City and beyond. The Center works expertise and passion of the students, faculty and with policymakers, community organizations, staff of Hunter College. The Center aims to make advocates, and the public to create healthier, more New York City a model for smart, fair food policy.

Understanding Local Food Environments, Food Policies, and Food Terminology 20