Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) poses an occupational health risk to food system workers including farmers/producers, grocery store workers, emergency food system staff and volunteers (e.g., food pantry workers), and others. These food system workers have been pushed to the front-line of this pandemic, providing essential services that support food consumption for all Americans. Food system workers are some of the most economically vulnerable populations and are at risk of further financial disparities and contraction of COVID-19 during this pandemic. As we continue to grapple with the best strategies to support the food system and mitigate concerns around the spread of COVID-19, appropriate measures must be considered to better protect and support front-line food system workers that safeguard food access for all Americans.

No abstract

Food insecurity, or lack of consistent access to enough food, is associated with low intakes of fruits and vegetables (FVs) and higher risk of chronic diseases and disproportionately affects populations with low income. Financial incentives for FVs are supported by the 2018 Farm Bill and United States (U.S.) Department of Agriculture’s Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP) and aim to increase dietary quality and food security among households participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and with low income. Currently, there is no shared evaluation model for the hundreds of financial incentive projects across the U.S. Despite the fact that a majority of these projects are federally funded and united as a cohort of grantees through GusNIP, it is unclear which models and attributes have the greatest public health impact. We explore the evaluation of financial incentives in the U.S. to demonstrate the need for shared measurement in the future. We describe the process of the GusNIP NTAE, a federally supported initiative, to identify and develop shared measurement to be able to determine the potential impact of financial incentives in the U.S. This commentary discusses the rationale, considerations, and next steps for establishing shared evaluation measures for financial incentives for FVs, to accelerate our understanding of impact, and support evidence-based policymaking.

Structural inequities contribute to food systems in which tribal communities in the U.S. are more likely to experience barriers to healthy food access, including financial barriers, lack of geographic proximity, or both. Food sovereignty movements improve food access by shifting power to local people to build food systems that support cultural, social, economic, and environmental needs. Finan­cial incentive programs, including produce pre­scription programs, have emerged as a promising intervention to improve food access and support food sovereignty. This case study describes the implementation of two federally funded produce prescription programs (Produce Prescription Pro­jects or PPR) under the U.S. Department of Agri­culture (USDA) Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incen­tive Program (GusNIP) in two rural tribal communities: the Yukon Kuskokwim Delta region in Alaska, and the Navajo Nation, which spans parts of New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. We illus­trate how PPR can be tailored to accommodate local and diverse cultures, strengthen community power, and be uniquely suited for the challenges of increasing access to nutritious food in rural tribal communities. We also highlight recommendations and future areas of research that may be useful for other rural tribal communities implementing PPR.

The purpose of this study is to describe the programmatic characteristics of current nutrition incentive projects supported by the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP). Specifically, implementation characteristics of nutrition incentive projects that were funded in 2019 were compared across brick and mortar (B&M) and farm direct (FD) sites in the United States. Across 10 nutrition incentive (NI) grantees, there were 621 sites that reported data from B&M (n = 156) and FD (n = 465) locations. Among B&M sites, the common food retail types included: large chain traditional supermarket (n = 49) and independent traditional supermarket (n = 46). Among FD sites, the most frequently reported food retail types were farmers markets (n = 371). For B&M sites, the most common financial instruments were loyalty cards (n = 67, 43.5%), followed by an automatic discount at the register (n = 41, 26.6%), and coupons (n = 29, 18.8%). FD sites frequently reported physical financial instruments including tokens (n = 272, 61.1%), followed by paper vouchers (n = 131, 29.4%). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) purchases that were eligible to trigger incentives included mainly “all fresh FVs” at B&M sites (n = 98, 48.5%) and “all SNAP eligible items” at FD sites (n = 417, 85.8%). FVs eligible for incentive redemption included mainly “all fresh FVs” for both B&M sites (n = 110, 65.5%) and FD sites (n = 370, 67.6%). In terms of incentive-to-SNAP level ratio, both B&M sites and FD sites reported that they commonly utilized a 1:1 incentive-to-SNAP level ratio (n = 106, 68.8% and n = 261, 94.9% respectively). This paper will provide foundational understanding of the heterogeneity of GusNIP NI projects—specifically between B&M and FD settings—in order to inform future national work and ultimately demonstrate the impact of NI projects on food security status and dietary quality.