2018

STATE INDICATOR REPORT ON

FRUITS AND
VEGETABLES
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables, 2018. Atlanta, GA:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2018.
2 01 8 State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables 3

Executive Summary
What is This Report?
Despite the health benefits of fruits and vegetables, Americans are not
consuming enough in their daily diet. States and communities can help citizens
consume more fruits and vegetables by making them convenient and affordable
in the places where children and adults live, work, learn, and play. This is
particularly important for individuals and families that face food insecurity or
lack access to stores selling quality produce at reasonable prices.

The State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables, 2018, shows the status of
10 indicators of fruit and vegetable access and production by state.

Key findings from this report include: yy 47 states adopted a policy that
The 2018 State Indicator supports either farm to school or
Report on Fruits and yy 10 states adopted a policy on farm to Early Care and Education
Vegetables can be used to: food service guidelines that (ECE) and increases student
ensures healthy foods be sold access to locally grown foods,
• Describe how states can or served in government-owned including fruits and vegetables;
support a strong food or -controlled facilities. Food school gardening; or other
system and promote fruit service guidelines increase educational activities related to
and vegetable access access to healthy food options nutrition and agriculture.
(e.g., fruits and vegetables, lean
• Highlight state successes proteins, and whole grains) in yy 32 states have an active state
work sites, state agencies, parks food policy council. Food policy
• Identify opportunities and recreation centers, and other councils bring together diverse
for improvement institutional settings. stakeholders to support a strong
regional food system and often
work to increase access to
nutritious foods, including fruits
and vegetables.
2 01 8 State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables 4

THE PROBLEM each day.4 Fruit and vegetable and local governments, work sites,
consumption among American schools, ECE centers, and hospitals,
youth is also low; just 9% of high are important partners in improving
ONLY 12.2% school students meet the fruit access to healthy foods.3,6-9 These
of adults meet the recommendation, and only 2% meet institutions provide frontline access
daily fruit intake the vegetable recommendation.5 to foods for millions of Americans
recommendation. [4] Income-related disparities exist, as each day. States can work with these
well, with 7% of adults who live at or diverse stakeholders to increase
below the poverty level meeting the access to fruits and vegetables and
ONLY 9.3% daily vegetable recommendation, strengthen the regional food system.
of adults meet the compared to 11.4% of adults with For example, government agencies
daily vegetable intake the highest household incomes.4 and work sites can adopt nutrition
recommendation. [4] standards that make healthy foods
(e.g., fruits and vegetables, whole
grains, lean proteins) available in
SOLUTIONS
Poor diet quality is a leading risk food service operations; schools can
factor associated with death and As part of a healthy food establish farm to school programs
disability in the United States.1,2 that support buying locally grown
Eating a diet rich in fruits and
environment, fruits and fruits and vegetables and provide
vegetables as part of an overall vegetables need to be educational gardening experiences;
healthy diet can help protect against and state and local food policy
a number of serious and costly
accessible and affordable councils can work to guide policies
chronic diseases, including heart in the places where and programs that improve the
disease, type 2 diabetes, some production, distribution, and
cancers, and obesity. Fruits and
children and families affordability of fruits and vegetables
vegetables also provide important spend time3,6 in underserved communities.6,10
vitamins and minerals that help the
human body work as it should and Educating individuals on the benefits
fight off illness and disease.3 of a diet rich in fruits and vegetables
is important; but alone, these
efforts are not enough.3 To change
The 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines
behavior and improve population-
for Americans recommends
level dietary habits, experts
that adults consume 1.5–2
recommend a collective approach
cups of fruits and 2–3 cups of
that improves the availability and
vegetables per day.3 Despite these
affordability of healthy foods where
recommendations, recent data show
Americans live, work, learn, and
low consumption.4,5 Only 1 in 10
play. In addition to community food
US adults eat the recommended
retailers, institutions, such as state
amount of fruits or vegetables
2 01 8 State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables 5

State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables

This state indicator report provides national and state data on 10 indicators of fruit
and vegetable access and production for all 50 states and the District of Columbia
(Table 1). These data augment recently released
state-specific fruit and vegetable consumption
and behavior data.4 Data for each indicator
was collected from verified, publicly available
sources. Indicator definitions and data
methodology are provided in Appendix I.

TABLE 1.

INDICATORS ON FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ACCESS AND PRODUCTION

IMPROVING FRUIT AND IMPROVING FRUIT FOOD SYSTEM

VEGETABLE ACCESS FOR AND VEGETABLE SUPPORT FOR FRUITS
INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES ACCESS FOR CHILDREN AND VEGETABLES

1. Number of Farmers Markets per 4. State ECE Licensing Regulations 8. State Food Policy Council, 2018
100,000 Residents, 2017 that Align with National 9. Number of Local Food Policy
2. Percentage of Farmers Markets Standards for Serving Fruits Councils, 2018
Accepting the Supplemental and Vegetables, 2016
10. Number of Food Hubs, 2017
Nutrition Program for Women, 5. State Farm to School or Farm to
Infants, and Children (WIC), ECE Policy in Place, 2002–2017
Farmers Market Nutrition 6. Percentage of School Districts
Program vouchers, 2017 Participating in Farm to School
3. State Policy on Food Service Programs, 2014
Guidelines, 2014 7. Percentage of Middle and
High Schools Offering Salad
Bars, 2016

CDC released a State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables in 2009 and 2013. Because of methodological differences in data collection, some indicators may
not be comparable to previous reports. See Appendix for details on which indicators are comparable.
2 01 8 State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables 6

Improving Fruit and Vegetable Access

for Individuals and Families
RATIONALE low-income individuals to shop, for
In the United States, there are example, near public transportation
2.7 FARMERS MARKETS States and communities stops or close to community health
clinics.12,13 Having farmers markets
per 100,000 citizens. can do more to make fruits that accept WIC Farmers Market
and vegetables accessible. Nutrition Program vouchers, or that
take part in incentive programs to
make fresh produce more affordable,
Although most Americans would can help lower-income families
benefit from improving their fruit address food insecurity and meet
ER 30.8% OF and vegetable intake, for some
VO
UCH dietary recommendations for fruits
US FARMERS individuals and families, this may and vegetables.14,15
MARKETS be more difficult.3 Research shows
accept WIC, that residents of low-income, Adopting food service guidelines, or
Farmers Market Nutrition minority, and rural neighborhoods nutrition standards that align with
Program vouchers. have less access to stores that sell the current Dietary Guidelines for
healthy foods, including a variety of Americans, is another strategy states
fruits and vegetables at affordable and communities can use to improve
prices.11 To address these disparities, the availability of healthy foods,
states can support strategies that including fruits and vegetables.
10 STATES make quality produce more Collectively, public facilities (e.g.,
ADOPTED accessible and affordable in state agencies, government work
A POLICY ON underserved neighborhoods.6 sites, public hospitals, senior
FOOD SERVICE centers, public parks, recreation
GUIDELINES A farmers market is one way centers) sell or serve food
that ensures healthy food to increase access to fruits and to millions of Americans each day.7
vegetables.6 Farmers markets help By adopting food service guidelines,
options be sold or served
connect local farms to underserved these institutions can use their
in government-owned
neighborhoods or rural areas purchasing power to provide foods
or -controlled
that may lack brick and mortar that support overall health and
facilities.
stores selling affordable fruits and wellness, such as leaner proteins,
vegetables. These markets can whole grains, lower fat dairy, and
expand operating hours and locate fruits and vegetables.16,17
near places that make it easy for
2 01 8 State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables 7

Kentucky Farmers Markets

Improve Access to Fresh Produce
in Underserved Neighborhoods
In 2013, 46% of Kentucky adults ate fruit less than once a
day, and 25% ate vegetables less than once a day. Often,
residents in low-income or rural communities do not have
access to full-service grocery stores that carry a wide
variety of produce, including, low-sodium canned products,
frozen, or fresh produce.

Community farmers markets farmers markets, enabling them Learn more about the
are a good solution, but in 2014, to fully accept federal nutrition successes of the Kentucky
only a small number of Kentucky benefits. As of 2017, low-income Farmers Market Support
markets accepted federal nutrition customers are able to shop at 41 Program at: [Link]
assistance benefits, such as participating markets and have nccdphp/dnpao/state-local-
WIC Farmers Market Nutrition their federal nutrition benefits programs/pdf/program-
Program vouchers or the Senior matched when purchasing fresh, highlights/[Link]
Farmers Market Nutrition local produce.
This project is supported by CDC’s State
Program coupons. Public Health Actions to Prevent and
Customer surveys administered
Control Diabetes, Heart Disease, Obesity,
To address the issue, the after the initial phase of the
and Associated Risk Factors and Promote
Kentucky Department of program found that: School Health cooperative agreement
Public Health partnered with (DP13-1305).
a coalition of community yy
organizations across the state
to improve healthier food access
in low-income communities.
Through a collaborative effort, yy
the Community Farm Alliance
developed the Double Dollars
program. The Double Dollars
program provides technical yy
assistance and funding to
2 01 8 State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables 8

Improving Fruit and Vegetable Access

for Children
RATIONALE States can support the development
of farm to school and farm to ECE
3 STATES Schools and ECE programs. These programs provide
HAVE ECE fruits and vegetables and teach
LICENSING providers are key partners healthy eating behaviors through
REGULATIONS in supporting children’s nutrition-based curriculum and
that align with hands-on learning experiences,
national standards
fruit and vegetable intake. for example, farm visits, school
for serving fruits gardens, and healthy cooking
and vegetables. Most US children do not meet lessons.26,27 Introducing a salad bar
national recommendations for into the school lunch room may also
fruit and vegetable servings.5, 18 increase the amount and variety
Helping children develop healthy of fruits and vegetables consumed
eating habits early in life may lead by students.28-30
47 STATES
ADOPTED A to healthier behaviors that last a
In addition to schools, ECE settings,
POLICY that supports lifetime.19 States can partner with
which include childcare centers,
schools, ECE providers, and after-
farm to school or farm to ECE family childcare homes,
school programs to ensure that
(2002–2017). prekindergarten classrooms, and
nutritious foods, including fruits and
Head Start, are an important venue
vegetables, are affordable, appealing,
for obesity prevention and healthy
and accessible to the children they
42% OF eating promotion.31,32 Currently,
serve.20-23 Improving the nutrition
US SCHOOL almost 14% of preschool-aged
environment in schools and ECE
DISTRICTS children (2 to 5 years) have
settings can also support the food
participate in obesity.33 ECE settings directly
system and stimulate economic
farm to school programs. influence what millions of young
development through large-scale
children eat on a daily basis.34
purchasing of fruits and vegetables
Some states and communities are
from local or regional farmers.24,25
adopting ECE licensing regulations
Across 48 states
that include best practices for
and D.C.,
obesity prevention and require ECE
a median of
providers to increase the amount
44.8% OF and variety of fruits and vegetables
MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS served at meals or snack times.35
OFFER A SALAD BAR
TO STUDENTS.
2 01 8 State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables 9

Increasing Access to Fruits

and Vegetables in Ohio Early Care
and Education Centers
In Ohio, 13% of children aged 2 to 4 years who
participate in the WIC federal nutrition assistance
program have obesity. In addition, approximately 41% of
children are cared for outside of their homes by a nonfamily
member on a part-time or full-time basis.

In 2016, Ohio childcare 110,000 children, to improve

regulations did not fully meet food menus and educate parents
the national standards for obesity about healthy eating practices. My class is going
prevention, including regularly Examples of menu improvements through a food revolution.
providing access to fresh fruits include eliminating fried foods,
and vegetables. offering fresh fruit and vegetables My pickiest eaters are the
at every meal, and providing most eager to try new foods
As a result, the Ohio Department milk and water instead of sugar-
of Health worked with partners now, and they look forward
sweetened beverages.
across the state to improve to lunch as an activity rather
nutrition standards in 80% of Ohio To learn more about how
counties. Working together with the Ohio Department of than just something we
the Ohio Child Care Resources & Health is making healthy
need to get through.”
Referral Association and Children’s food choices easier for Ohio children,
Hunger Alliance, the Department visit: [Link] — CHILD CARE PROVIDER,
nccdsuccessstories/showdoc.
of Health provided licensed OHIO HEALTHY PROGRAM
aspx?s=12608&dt=0
childcare centers, preschools, and PARTICIPANT
home-based childcare programs This project is supported by the CDC‑funded
with resources, trainings, and State Public Health Actions to Prevent and
technical assistance on reaching Control Diabetes, Heart Disease, Obesity,
and Associated Risk Factors and Promote
best practices for healthy eating.
School Health cooperative agreement
(DP13-1305).
The initiative worked with over
1,600 ECE centers across the
state, serving approximately
2 01 8 State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables 10

Increasing Food System Support for

Fruits and Vegetables
RATIONALE To build a strong food system,
32 STATES states can partner with a variety
have an Strong regional of stakeholders, including regional
farmers, large-scale purchasers,
active food systems are a community food banks, public
state food
policy council. win-win for producers health practitioners, nonprofit
organizations, and interested
and consumers. citizens. A food policy council brings
together these diverse stakeholders
Some states and communities are to discuss food system issues and
There are 234 ACTIVE LOCAL
working to create strong regional plan for collective action. These
FOOD POLICY COUNCILS
food systems that enable residents councils often work to guide policies
in the United States.
to buy more locally sourced foods, and programs that improve the
including fruits and vegetables. food system and make nutritious
Local produce farmers often sell foods, such as fruits and vegetables,
fruits and vegetables in direct- accessible and affordable.40, 41
to-consumer venues, such as
In addition, states can support
community farmers markets, and
regional food hubs as a strategy for
through farm to institution programs
increasing access to locally grown
in schools, businesses, universities,
There are 212 ACTIVE produce. Food hubs are businesses
and hospitals.36,37 This may help
FOOD HUBS in the or organizations that manage
keep money spent on food within
United States. the aggregation, distribution, and
the local economy, and support new
marketing of products from regional
jobs and economic growth. This is a
farms.42 The majority of food hubs
win-win for citizens who want to eat
in the United States carry fruits and
a diet rich in fruits and vegetables,
vegetables from local or regional
and for the local farmers that
growers.43 They make it easier for
grow them.37-39
small and midsize farmers to meet
the volume and quality demands
of large, institutional purchasers
of fruits and vegetables, for
example, food retailers, schools,
and hospitals.42, 43
 C D C ’ S STAT E I N D I C ATO R R E P O RT O N F R U I TS A N D V E G E TA B L E S , 2 0 1 8

For Individuals and Families For Children Food System Support

Percentage of Middle and

Farmers Market Nutrition

Education Policy in Place,

State ECE Licensing

Align with National

Service Guidelines, 2014
Program Vouchers, 2017
Markets Accepting WIC

State Farm to School or

Serving Fruits and

Farm to Early Care and

Vegetables, 2016
Percentage of Farmers

Number of Local Food

High Schools Offering
Districts Participating
Regulations that
Markets per 100,000

Policy Councils, 2018

Percentage of School
State Policy on Food
Number of Farmers

Standards for

in Farm to School

State Food Policy

Food Hubs, 2017

Salad Bars, 2016

Council, 2018**
Residents, 2017

Programs, 2014
2002–2017

Number of
State Fruit Vegetable

National 2.7 30.8 10 9 3 47 41.8 44.8 * 32 234 212

Alabama (AL) 2.9 9.9 No No No Yes 30.8 41.7 No 1 1
Alaska (AK) 5.3 38.5 No No No Yes 76.3 26.1 Yes 0 3
Arizona (AZ) 1.3 38.0 No Yes No Yes 25.3 49.5 No 3 3
Arkansas (AR) 3.6 19.6 No No No Yes 22.3 40.9 No 0 2
California (CA) 1.9 48.5 Yes Yes No Yes 54.9 54.8 Yes 29 14
Colorado (CO) 2.8 5.1 No No No Yes 41.8 N/A Yes 16 3
Connecticut (CT) 4.3 27.6 No No No Yes 70.3 37.1 Yes 5 2
Delaware (DE) 3.8 16.2 No Yes No Yes 60.0 12.8 Yes 0 0
Dist of Columbia (DC) 7.8 83.3 Yes No No Yes 76.6 46.4 N/A 1 1
Florida (FL) 1.2 8.5 No No No Yes 45.0 16.4 Yes 8 4
Georgia (GA) 1.5 7.6 No No No Yes 61.6 28.6 No 2 7
Hawaii (HI) 6.9 0.0 No No No Yes 47.4 32.3 Yes 0 3
Idaho (ID) 3.7 1.6 No No No No 44.7 56.4 No 1 1
Illinois (IL) 2.6 13.5 No Yes No Yes 24.4 37.6 Yes 2 7
Indiana (IN) 2.9 40.6 No No No No 31.2 44.8 Yes 2 3
Iowa (IA) 7.3 34.9 No No No Yes 29.2 N/A No 5 5
Kansas (KS) 4 2.6 No No No Yes 32.6 76.6 Yes 11 1
Kentucky (KY) 2.9 39.7 No No No Yes 48.1 25.6 Yes 2 2
Louisiana (LA) 1.7 16.0 No No No Yes 33.3 26.1 No 2 2
Maine (ME) 7.2 40.6 No No No Yes 79.4 82.4 Yes 11 2
Maryland (MD) 2.7 67.9 No No No Yes 68.3 27.8 No 8 8
Massachusetts (MA) 4.7 55.3 Yes No No Yes 68.4 39.7 Yes 6 9
Michigan (MI) 3.4 46.0 No No No Yes 43.2 54.1 Yes 15 10
Minnesota (MN) 3.5 19.8 Yes No No Yes 50.6 73.4 Yes 5 5
Mississippi (MS) 2.8 15.7 Yes Yes Yes Yes 50.0 15.5 Yes 0 4
Missouri (MO) 4.2 0.4 No Yes No Yes 27.4 58.2 No 3 3
Montana (MT) 6.7 18.6 No No No Yes 40.2 76.9 Yes 1 2
Nebraska (NE) 5.1 17.3 No No No Yes 28.9 85.5 Yes 3 1
Nevada (NV) 1.3 7.5 No No No Yes 22.2 23.3 Yes 2 1
New Hampshire (NH) 7.1 9.5 No No No Yes 76.7 48.7 No 0 1
New Jersey (NJ) 1.7 32.0 No No No Yes 48.3 27.1 No 3 0
New Mexico (NM) 3.4 70.0 No Yes Yes Yes 34.5 43.4 Yes 3 1
New York (NY) 3.4 57.2 No No No Yes 60.7 57.9 Yes 4 11
North Carolina (NC) 2.5 15.4 No Yes No Yes 62.2 13.3 Yes 22 12
North Dakota (ND) 8.6 0.0 No No No No 31.3 91.2 No 1 0
Ohio (OH) 2.9 25.7 Yes No No Yes 26.6 31.6 Yes 14 10
Oklahoma (OK) 1.8 11.3 Yes No No Yes 21.3 63.6 Yes 1 2
Oregon (OR) 4.1 57.4 No No No Yes 54.9 74.9 No 4 5
Pennsylvania (PA) 2.4 30.9 No Yes Yes Yes 44.2 39.6 No 5 12
Rhode Island (RI) 3.4 75.0 No No No Yes 90.5 58.8 Yes 0 2
South Carolina (SC) 2.7 21.6 No No No Yes 51.6 24.9 Yes 3 1
South Dakota (SD) 4.7 0.0 No No No No 31.0 85.3 No 0 2
Tennessee (TN) 1.9 3.9 Yes No No Yes 50.9 32.3 Yes 2 4
Texas (TX) 0.8 9.8 No No No Yes 28.0 21.9 No 6 7
Utah (UT) 1.4 2.3 No No No Yes 34.9 46.7 No 1 0
Vermont (VT) 14.9 37.6 Yes No No Yes 82.5 86.2 Yes 1 7
Virginia (VA) 3 1.6 No No No Yes 56.7 24.0 Yes 8 12
Washington (WA) 2.3 65.3 Yes No No Yes 48.5 65.8 Yes 5 8
West Virginia (WV) 5.1 35.5 No No No Yes 82.5 82.1 Yes 0 4
Wisconsin (WI) 5.3 45.8 No No No Yes 48.9 63.9 Yes 7 2
Wyoming (WY) 8.3 0.0 No No No Yes 31.4 77.5 No 0 0

* Median across 48 states and D.C.

**As of 2018, there are three active tribal food policy councils at various phases of development, including: Mvskoke Food Sovereignty Initiative Oklahoma, Pryor Food Policy Council Oklahoma, and Hoopa Food Policy Council California.
For the purposes of this indicator, tribal food policy councils were excluded.
 2 01 8 State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables 12

A P P EN D I X 1
S TAT E I N D I CAT O R S O N F R U I T S A N D V E G E TA B LES —
DATA D EF I N I T I O N S A N D S O U RC ES

Indicators on Fruit and Vegetable Access for Individuals and Families

1) Number of Farmers Markets per 100,000 Residents, 2017
This indicator represents number of farmers markets per 100,000 state residents in 2017.
a. Numerator: Total farmers markets per state. United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture marketing Service. Local
Food Directories: National Farmers Market Directory Data accessed January 18, 2018. Available at:
[Link]
b. Denominator: Population Estimates United States Census Bureau. July 1, 2017. Date accessed December 31, 2017. Available
at: [Link] Table Name: Estimates of the Total Resident
Population and Resident Population Age 18 Years and Older for the United States, States, and Puerto Rico: July 1, 2017 (Column
B, “Total Resident Population”).
c. This indicator is comparable to the indicator in both the 2009 and 2013 CDC State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables.

2) Percentage of Farmers Markets Accepting WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program Vouchers, 2017
This indicator represents the percentage of farmers markets accepting WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program vouchers in 2017.
a. Numerator: Number of farmers markets that accept WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program vouchers.
b. Denominator: Total number of farmers markets per state.
c. This indicator is comparable to the indicator in both the 2009 and 2013 CDC State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables.
Source: United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Marketing Service. Local Food Directories: National Farmers Market
Directory (2017). Data accessed January 18, 2018. Available at [Link]

3) State Policy on Food Service Guidelines, 2014

This indicator represents whether a state’s legislative body enacted or adopted a policy on food service guideline as of
December 31, 2014.
a. Types of policies included: state bills, statutes, regulations, and executive orders.

1. Data Sources: WestlawNext (Thomas Reuters, New York, NY); The CDC’s Chronic Disease State Policy Tracking System;
Lexis-Nexis an online commercial legal database.
b. The following inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to identify relevant state Food Service Guidelines Policies:
2. Inclusion Criteria:
i. The policy had to specify the development or reference nutritional guidelines that apply to foods and beverages
served or sold to adult populations in government-owned or -controlled facilities, including conferences and on-
site or off-site events OR the policy had to specify the development of task forces or other committees delegated
to develop food service guidelines.
3. Exclusion Criteria:
i. Policies that dealt with only children and adolescents.
ii. Policies that dealt with only food insecurity.
iii. Policies that were defined as “standards of care,” or policies that maintain care that is expected of the average,
prudent provider, but do not operationalize nutritional guidelines.
c. This indicator was not included in CDC’s State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables, 2009, or the State Indicator Report on
Fruits and Vegetables, 2013.
Source: Zaganjor H, Kendrick KB, Warnock AL, et al. Food Service Guideline Policies on State Government-Controlled Properties.
Am J Health Promot. Available at [Link]
2 01 8 State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables 13

Indicators on Fruit and Vegetable Access for Children

4) State ECE Licensing Regulations that Align with National Standards for Serving Fruits and Vegetables, 2016
This indicator represents whether a state adopted ECE licensing regulations that align with the national standards for serving
fruits and vegetables.
a. Data for this indicator were derived from the National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care and Early
Education’s (NRC) analysis of the degree to which state ECE regulations for licensed childcare centers, large or group
family childcare homes, and small family childcare homes align with national standards for serving fruits and vegetables.
b. The national standards are defined by the 3rd Caring for Our Children: National Health and Safety Performance Standards for
Early Care and Education Programs. The fruit and vegetable standard specifies that children be served:
A variety of fruits, especially whole fruits (NB3) AND a variety of vegetables, specifically
dark green, orange, deep yellow, and root vegetables (NB2)
c. States whose ECE licensing regulations were given a score of 4, meaning the licensing regulation fully addresses the
NB3 and NB2 standards across all 3 childcare types, are designated as “yes.” States that received a score of 1, 2, or 3 in
any childcare type were designated as “no.” States that received a score of “0” for a childcare type do not regulate that
childcare type, and that childcare type was not included in the analysis.
d. Because of methodological differences, this indicator is not comparable to CDC’s State Indicator Report on Fruits and
Vegetables, 2009, or CDC’s State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables, 2013.
Source: National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care and Early Education. Achieving a State of Healthy Weight:
2016 Update. Aurora, CO: University of Colorado Denver; 2017. Available at: [Link]

5) State Farm to School or Farm to ECE Policy in Place, 2002–2017

This indicator represents whether a state adopted or enacted a farm to school or farm to ECE policy during January 1, 2002–
March 31, 2017. Data for this indicator is accurate as of March 31, 2017; enacted policies may no longer be in effect because
of repeal, sunset, or loss of appropriated funding.
a. State policies included in this indicator support any of the 3 core elements of farm to school programs that target K-12
or ECE settings. The 3 core elements of farm to school programs, include: local procurement, agricultural and food
education, and school gardens.
b. Policy types included state legislative bills or resolutions.
c. Policy Inclusion Criteria:
1. For a policy to be included in this indicator, the status had to be one of the following:
i. Adopted or enacted.
ii. Codified in state code.
iii. Enacted; yet to be codified in state code.
iv. Appropriated funding in annual state budget documents.
v. Codified in state statute, but repealed. These policies were enacted by the state legislative body and
demonstrate support for farm to school programs and activities for a period of time.
d. Policy Exclusion Criteria:
1. Policies coded as “pending” or “dead.”
2. Policies coded as adopted or enacted, but with farm to school provisions removed from bill language before its
adoption.
e. Because of methodological differences, this indicator is not comparable to CDC’s State Indicator Report on Fruits and
Vegetables, 2009, or CDC’s State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables, 2013.
Source: National Farm to School Network, State Farm to School Legislative Survey: 2002–2017. Data accessed December
31, 2017. Available at: [Link]
Survey%[Link].
2018 State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables 14

6) Percentage of School Districts Participating in Farm to School Programs, 2014

This indicator represents the number of school districts that report participating in farm to school programs relative to the
total number of school districts in the state in 2014.
a. Data were derived from USDA’s 2015 Farm to School Census survey, Question #2:
Farm to school activities generally center around the procurement of local or regional foods, agriculture or nutrition‑
based educational activities, such as:
• Serving local food products in school (meals and snacks).
• Serving local food products in classrooms (snacks, taste tests, educational tools).
• Conducting educational activities related to local foods, such as farmers in the classroom and culinary education
focused on local foods, field trips to farms, farmers markets or food processing facilities, and educational sessions
for parents and community members.
• Creating and tending school gardens (growing edible fruits and vegetables).
Based on the definition above, did your district or any schools in your district participate in farm to school activities
during the 2013–2014 school year? (Please check one) Response options included:
a. Yes.
b. No, but started activities in the 2014–2015 school year.
c. No, but plan to start activities in the future.
d. No activities currently and no plans.
e. I don’t know.
b. For the purposes of this indicator, answer options (a) and (b) were counted as participating in farm to school programs.
Access the calculated percentages for answer options from the following source: [Link]
gov/about. (Use Excel file, 2015 Farm to School Census State-National Data_1.11.17_web.xlsx.)
c. Use Excel sheet: 2015 F2S Census State. Column B denotes variable“pctf2s2013,” which is the percentage of responding
districts that had farm to school activities in school year 2013–2014. Column C denotes variable “pctf2s2014,” which is
the percentage of responding districts that started activities in school year 2014–2015.
d. This indicator was not included in CDC’s State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables, 2009, or CDC’s State Indicator
Report on Fruits and Vegetables, 2013.
Source: United States Department of Agriculture. Farm to School Census (2015). Data accessed December 31, 2017. https://
[Link]/about. Document Name: 2015 Farm to School Census State-National Data_1.11.17_web.xlsx.

7) Percentage of Middle and High Schools Offering Salad Bars, 2016

This indicator represents the number of middle and high schools that offer a self-serve salad bar relative to total schools
surveyed. The data were weighted to reflect the likelihood of principals or teachers being selected, and to adjust for differing
patterns of nonresponse.
a. Numerator: Number of middle and high schools that responded (via principal survey) “(j) Offered a self-serve salad bar to
students” to Q.35 “During this school year, has your school done any of the following? (Mark yes or no for each.)” States
with estimates are those with weighted data; (at least 70% of the principals in the sampled schools completed the survey).
b. Denominator: Total number of all middle and high schools surveyed.
c. The national data for this indicator represents the median percentage among 48 states and the District of Columbia.
d. This indicator was not included in CDC’s State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables, 2009, or CDC’s State Indicator
Report on Fruits and Vegetables, 2013.
Source: CDC 2016 School Health Profiles, School Principal Survey. Data accessed December 31, 2017. Available at Table
31b. Percentage of Secondary Schools That Implemented Strategies to Promote Healthy Eating During the Current School
Year, Selected US Sites: School Health Profiles, Principal Surveys, 2016. [Link]
pdf/2016/2016_Profiles_Report.pdf.
2 01 8 State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables 15

Indicators on Food System Support for Fruit and Vegetables

8) State Food Policy Council, 2018
This indicator represents whether an active state food policy council exists (yes/no).
a. Active state food policy councils were identified by using the online Food Policy Council Directory maintained on the
Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future website, as of the accessed date. State food policy councils included in this
national directory are identified by ongoing self-registration and verified via the annual survey of food policy councils
conducted by John Hopkins Center for a Livable Future. This national directory is a continuation of the Community Food
Security Coalition’s tracking of active state and local food policy councils beginning in 2012.
b. For this indicator, states with a food policy council are indicated with a yes or no and may be at different phases
of development.
c. This indicator is comparable to the indicator in both the 2009 and 2013 CDC State Indicator Report on Fruits
and Vegetables.
Source: John Hopkins Center for a Livable Future. Food Policy Council Directory. Data accessed, January, 23rd, 2018.
Retrieved from: [Link]

9) Number of Local Food Policy Councils, 2018

This indicator represents the number of active local food policy councils within each state.
a. Active local food policy councils were identified by using the online Food Policy Council Directory maintained on the
Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future website, as of the accessed date. Local food policy councils included in this
national directory are identified by ongoing self-registration and verified via the annual survey of food policy councils
conducted by John Hopkins Center for a Livable Future. This national directory is a continuation of the Community Food
Security Coalition’s tracking of active state and local food policy councils beginning in 2012.
b. For this indicator, active local food policy councils are enumerated and may operate at the city, municipal, county, district,
or regional level. Food policy councils included in this indicator may be at different phases of development.
c. This indicator is comparable to the indicator in both the 2009 and 2013 CDC State Indicator Report on Fruits
and Vegetables.
Source: John Hopkins Center for a Livable Future. Food Policy Council Directory. Data accessed, January, 23rd, 2018.
Retrieved from: [Link]

10) Number of Food Hubs, 2017

This indicator represents the total number of food hubs within a state.
a. USDA defines a food hub as a business or organization that actively manages the aggregation, distribution, and
marketing of source-identified food products primarily from local and regional producers to strengthen their ability to
satisfy wholesale, retail, and institutional demand.
b. The number of active food hubs by state was based on the list available on the USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service,
food hubs directory, as of the accessed date. The online directory is maintained by USDA, Agriculture Marketing Service.
It provides a listing of active US food hubs collected through ongoing self-registration. It does not represent a census of
active hubs.
c. This indicator is comparable to the indicator in CDC’s State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables, 2013.
Source: United States Department of Agriculture. Agriculture Marketing Services, Food Hub Directory (2017). Data accessed
December 31, 2017. Retrieved from [Link]
2 01 8 State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables 16

R EF ER EN C ES

1) Lim SS, Vos T, Flaxman AD, et al. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors
and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet.
2012;380(9859):2224–60.

2) Murray CJ, Abraham J, Ali MK, et al. The state of US health, 1990–2010: burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors. JAMA.
2013;310(6):591–606.

3) US Department of Health and Human Services and US Department of Agriculture. 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 8th
Edition. December 2015. Available at [Link]

4) Lee-Kwan SH, Moore LV, Blanck HM, et al. Disparities in state-specific adult fruit and vegetable consumption — United States, 2015.
MMWR. 2017;66:1241–1247.

5) Moore, LV, Thompson FE, Demissie Z. Percentage of youth meeting federal fruit and vegetable intake recommendations, Youth Risk
Behavior Surveillance System, United States and 33 states, 2013. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. 2017;117(4):545-553.

6) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Strategies to Prevent Obesity and Other Chronic Diseases: The CDC Guide to
Strategies to Increase the Consumption of Fruits and Vegetables. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2011.
[Link]

7) Committee on Accelerating Progress in Obesity Prevention. Accelerating progress in obesity prevention: solving the weight of the
nation. National Academies Press; 2012. [Link]
[Link]

8) Afshin A, Penalvo J, Del Gobbo L, et al. CVD prevention through policy: a review of mass media, food/menu labeling, taxation/
subsidies, built environment, school procurement, worksite wellness, and marketing standards to improve diet. Current cardiology
Reports. 2015; 17(11):98.

9) Mozaffarian D. Dietary and policy priorities for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity: a comprehensive review. Circulation.
2016;133(2):187-225.

10) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of
Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity. Healthy Food Environments [online]. Accessed February 6, 2018. URL: [Link]
obesity/strategies/[Link]

11) Larson NI, Story MT, Nelson MC. Neighborhood environments: disparities in access to healthy foods in the U.S. Am J Prev Med.
2009;36:74–81.

12) Freedman DA, Vaudrin N, Schneider C, et al. Systematic review of factors influencing farmers’ market use overall and among low-
income populations. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. 2016;116(7):1136-1155.

13) Freedman DA, Choi SK, Hurley T, et al. A farmers market at a federally qualified health center improves fruit and vegetable intake
among low-income diabetics. Preventive Medicine. 2013;56(5):288–292.

14) McCormack LA, Laska MN, Larson NI et al. Review of the nutritional implications of farmers markets and community gardens: a call for
evaluation and research efforts. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 2010;110(3):399-408.

15) Olsho LE, Payne GH, Walker DK, et al. Impacts of a farmers market incentive program on fruit and vegetable access, purchase and
consumption. Public health nutrition. 2015;18(15):2712-2721.

16) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smart Food Choices: How to Implement Food Service Guidelines in Public Facilities.
Atlanta, GA: US Dept. of Health and Human Services; 2014. [Link]
[Link]

17) Food Service Guidelines Federal Workgroup. Food Service Guidelines for Federal Facilities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services; 2017. [Link]

18) National Cancer Institute. Usual dietary intakes: food intakes, US population, 2007–10. [Link]
usualintakes/pop/2007-10/#findings

19) Maynard M, Gunnell D, Ness AR, et al. What influences diet in early old age? Prospective and cross-sectional analyses of the Boyd Orr
cohort. Eu J Public Health 2006;16(3):315-323.

20) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. School health guidelines to promote healthy eating and physical activity. MMWR.
2011;60(RR-5).
2 01 8 State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables 17

21) Institute of Medicine. Early childhood obesity prevention policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011. [Link]
[Link]/catalog/13124/early-childhood-obesity-prevention-policies

22) Institute of Medicine. Child and Adult Care Food Program: aligning dietary guidance for all. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press; 2011. [Link]

23) American Academy of Pediatrics; American Public Health Association; National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care
and Early Education. Preventing childhood obesity in early care and education. Aurora, CO: National Resource Center for Health and
Safety in Child Care and Early; 2012.

24) Hoffman JA, Schmidt EM, Wirth C, et al. Farm to preschool: The state of the research literature and a snapshot of national practice.
Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition. 2017 Oct 2;12(4):443-465.

25) Harris D, Lott M, Lakins V, et al. Farm to institution: Creating access to healthy local and regional foods. Advances in Nutrition. 2012 May
4;3(3):343-9.

26) National Farm to School Network. About Farm to School. [Link] Accessed
November, 21 2017.

27) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Farm to School Program. [Link]
school. Accessed on February 14, 2018.

28) Harris D, Seymour J, Grummer-Strawn L, et al. Let’s move salad bars to schools: a public–private partnership to increase student fruit
and vegetable consumption. Childhood Obesity (Formerly Obesity and Weight Management). 2012 Aug;8(4):294-297.

29) Terry-McElrath YM, O’Malley PM, Johnston LD. Accessibility over availability: associations between the school food environment and
student fruit and green vegetable consumption. Childhood Obesity. 2014;10(3):241-50.

30) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Overweight and
Obesity, Salad Bars to School. [Link] Accessed February 6, 2018.

31) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Surgeon General’s Vision for a Healthy and Fit Nation. Rockville, MD: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General, January 2010.

32) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Spectrum of Opportunities for Obesity Prevention in the Early Care and Education
Setting. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2012. [Link]
[Link]. Accessed February 8, 2018.

33) Hales CM, Carroll MD, Fryar CD, et al. Prevalence of obesity among adults and youth: United States, 2015–2016. NCHS data brief, no
288. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2017.

34) Laughlin, L. Who’s minding the kids? Child care arrangements: Spring 2011. Current population reports, P70-135. Washington, DC: US
Census Bureau. 2013.

35) National Resource Center (NRC) for Health and Safety in Child Care and Early Education. Achieving a state of healthy weight: 2016
update. Aurora, CO: University of Colorado Denver. 2017.

36) Low SA, Adalja A, Beaulieu E, et al. Trends in US local and regional food systems, AP-068. US Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service. 2015.

37) Harris D, Lott M, Lakins V, et al. Farm to institution: Creating access to healthy local and regional foods. Advances in Nutrition. 2012 May
4;3(3):343-9.

38) McFadden DT, Conner D, Deller S, et al. The economics of local food systems: A toolkit to guide community discussions, assessments,
and choices. US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. 2016.

39) Martinez, Steve, et al. Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues, ERR 97, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research
Service, 2010. [Link]

40) Harper A, Shattuck A, Holt-Giménez E, et al. Food policy councils: Lessons learned. Institute for food and development policy. 2009; 1-63.
[Link]

41) Sussman LI, Bassarab KA. Food policy council report 2016. Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future. 2016. [Link]
clf/mod_clfResource/doc/FPC%20Report%202016_Final.pdf

42) Barham, J., Tropp, D., Enterline, K., et al. Regional food hub resource guide (No. 145227). 2012. [Link]

43) Hardy J, Hamm M, Pirog R, et al. Findings of the 2015 National Food Hub Survey. East Lansing. MI: Michigan State University Center for
Regional Food Systems and The Wallace Center at Winrock International. 2016.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

1600 Clifton Road NE Atlanta, GA 30333

Tel [Link] (232.4636/TTY. 1.888.232.6348)

[Link]/nutrition

Publication date: June 2018