Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 5 Impact of the Minneapolis Staple Foods Ordinance over time on customer food/beverage purchasing, 2014–2017 (n = 3,039)

From: Evaluation of the first U.S. staple foods ordinance: impact on nutritional quality of food store offerings, customer purchases and home food environments

Outcome City Assessment Period Overall effects
   Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4   
   Pre-policy change, 2014 Implementation only, no enforcement, 2015 Early initiation of enforcement, 2016 Continued monitoring, 2017 Main effects Interaction
       Time City Time x City
   Means (SE)   P (df = 3) P (df = 1) P (df = 3)
Number of items purchased Minneapolis 2.2 (0.1) 2.5 (0.1) 2.2 (0.1) 2.4 (0.1) 0.26 0.008 0.24
  St. Paul 3.0 (0.2) 2.9 (0.2) 2.6 (0.2) 2.8 (0.4)    
  p-net 0.10 0.08 0.30    
Total amount spent (US$)a Minneapolis 3.9 (0.3) 4.8 (0.8) 3.5 (0.4) 4.1 (0.4) 0.24 0.04 0.87
  St. Paul 5.7 (1.2) 5.7 (1.0) 5.1 (0.9) 5.6 (0.8)    
  p-net 0.57 0.61 0.40    
Calories purchaseda Minneapolis 962 (93) 1179 (184) 838 (112) 928 (114) 0.01 0.02 0.76
  St. Paul 1421 (221) 1926 (568) 1306 (257) 1630 (455)    
  p-net 0.33 0.49 0.40    
Energy densityb Minneapolis 3.8 (0.1) 3.6 (0.1) 3.6 (0.2) 3.6 (0.1) 0.61 0.99 0.82
  St. Paul 3.6 (0.2) 3.7 (0.1) 3.6 (0.1) 3.5 (0.2)    
  p-net 0.36 0.50 0.66    
HEI-2010 score (1–100) Minneapolis 30.7 (0.8) 31.4 (0.7) 30.2 (0.7) 31.3 (0.9) 0.84 0.44 0.69
  St. Paul 29.9 (0.8) 30.5 (1.0) 30.7 (1.1) 30.0 (0.9)    
  p-net 0.93 0.41 0.75    
Fruitc Minneapolis 1.1 (0.7) 5.0 (1.6) 4.8 (1.9) 4.4 (1.3) 0.08 0.95 0.42
  St. Paul) 2.5 (1.0) 2.9 (1.3) 4.6 (1.8) 3.5 (1.4)    
  p-net 0.10 0.35 0.19    
Vegetablesc Minneapolis 5.1 (1.1) 4.1 (1.3) 1.9 (0.8) 4.4 (1.0) 0.009 0.28 0.59
  St. Paul 6.6 (1.8) 4.4 (1.7) 4.3 (1.7) 7.2 (2.3)    
  p-net 0.72 0.29 0.57    
Whole grainsc Minneapolis 7.9 (1.5) 7.4 (1.5) 6.6 (1.4) 7.6 (1.3) 0.94 0.83 0.95
  St. Paul 7.4 (1.4) 8.3 (1.8) 7.4 (1.3) 7.4 (1.5)    
  p-net 0.66 0.63 0.89    
Skim or reduced fat milkc Minneapolis 4.2 (1.3) 2.3 (0.7) 1.8 (0.8) 1.3 (0.6) 0.62 0.07 0.07
  St. Paul 2.4 (0.9) 4.7 (1.0) 3.1 (1.0) 4.7 (1.1)    
  p-net 0.02 0.10 0.01    
Added sugars (% of calories) Minneapolis 36.5 (2.5) 37.0 (2.0) 42.8 (2.0) 43.7 (2.3) 0.01 0.89 0.76
  St. Paul 36.3 (2.3) 39.2 (3.1) 41.7 (2.6) 41.5 (3.0)    
  p-net 0.58 0.84 0.67    
Saturated fatty acids (% of calories) Minneapolis 8.1 (0.5) 7.8 (0.6) 6.4 (0.5) 6.4 (0.4) 0.0006 0.36 0.39
  St. Paul 8.6 (0.5) 8.1 (0.6) 6.1 (0.5) 7.6 (0.6)    
  p-net 0.75 0.39 0.53    
Sodiuma (per 1000 cal) Minneapolis 1389 (146) 2321 (762) 995 (89) 1378 (243) 0.08 0.79 0.96
  St. Paul 1488 (203) 1099 (97) 1895 (666) 1404 (372)    
  p-net 0.80 0.75 0.93    
  1. Note: Models are adjusted for repeated measures over time and for age (the only covariate that was significant in bivariate comparisons between Minneapolis and St. Paul at baseline). Models are linear regression models except specific product categories (fruit, vegetables, whole grains, milk) are logistic regression models; p-net values refer to changes in time*city effect from Time 1 to Time 2, from Time 1 to Time 3, and from Time 1 to Time 4 respectively
  2. aOutcome variable was log-transformed due to skewed distribution (Mean and standard error from non-transformed model; p-values from log-transformed model)
  3. bBeverages removed; only food items from purchases were used to calculate energy density
  4. cPercent of purchases with at least one serving
  5. Note: Number of missing values (if any) for each outcome variable at each time point: Time 1: total amount spent = 6; Time 2: total amount spent = 4, energy density = 1; Time 3: total amount spent = 4, energy density = 1; Time 4: total amount spent = 6
  6. Note: HEI score, and the nutrient variables not calculated for purchases where calories = 0
  7. Bolded values denote p < 0.05