1

University of MinnesotaSchool of Public Health

PI: Melissa Laska, PhD, RDmnlaska@umn.eduCo-I’s: Caitlin Caspi, ScD; Lisa Harnack, DrPH, RD;Darin Erickson, PhD

Project Coordinator: Stacey Moe, MPHmoe@umn.edu

Impact of a Local Staple Food Ordinance on Healthy Food Access

2

2008: Also includes meat, fish or vegetable proteins. 2015: Also includes meats, fish or vegetable proteins (expanded); eggs; canned beans; dried peas, beans, lentils; 100% juice.

Minneapolis Staple Food Ordinance

2008 2015

Bread, cereal & grains

≥3 varieties of bread or cereal,

≥2 fresh.

4 containers of WG cereal in ≥3 varieties AND 5# of WGs in ≥3 varieties

(including bread, tortillas, rice).

Dairy & substitutes

≥3 varieties, ≥2 fresh.

5 gallons of unsweetened cow’s milk in ≥2 varieties: skim, 1%, 2%, plain soy or

other plain milk alternative.

Fruits & vegetables

≥5 varieties of fresh. 30# in ≥7 varieties,

with ≥5 varieties fresh.

Examples of ordinance requirements

3

STORE Study: Evaluation timeline

Spring ‘14 Fall/Winter ‘14 Fall ‘15 Spring ‘16 Spring ‘17

Pre-baseline assessment: store audits, operator interviews, customer intercept surveys.

Baseline: audits, interviews, intercepts, home assessments

Revised policy effective; no enforcement.

12 month post-policy evaluation.

24 month post-policy evaluation.

4-6 month post-policy evaluation.

April ‘15

Policy enforcement begins.

April ‘16

4

Project Goals

• In evaluating the ordinance, our aims here are to assess:

• Aim 1: Disparities in changes to healthy food availability in in small- to mid-sized stores located in low versus high SES neighborhoods.

• Aim 2: Disparities in changes in perceptions of healthy food demand in low versus high SES neighborhoods of the city.

• Aim 3: Disparities in pricing of healthy items in small food stores, compared with pricing in local supermarkets.

5

Strategies

• Baseline sample: – 140 non-supermarket, non-WIC participating food

stores. Represents a random sample of stores drawn from administrative lists of licensed grocery stores in Minneapolis and St. Paul (control community).

– Nearest supermarket. • Data collection: – In-store audits using a NEMS-adapted tool. – Abbreviated audit of pricing data administered in

nearest supermarkets. – Structured interviews with store owners/managers.

6

Progress To Date

• Baseline data collection completed. • Short-term goals: – Data entry and processing– Preliminary analyses examining cross-sectional, pre-

policy disparities– On-going feedback from from our Community

Advisory Committee

7

Ideas for Collaboration

• Healthy Retail Working Group• Can draw from our experiences in the RWJF/HER Corner

Store Working Group. • Sharing lessons learned and best practices.• Opportunities for multi-site data collection.– Example: assessments of outdoor advertising.