Search

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected the health of food system (FS) essential workers compared with other essential and nonessential workers. Even greater disparity exists for workers in certain FS work settings and for certain FS worker subpopulations. We analyzed essential worker respondents (n = 151,789) in May-November 2021 data from the National Immunization Survey Adult COVID Module (NIS-ACM) to assess and characterize COVID-19 vaccination uptake (≥1 dose) and intent (reachable, reluctant), attitudes about COVID-19 and the vaccine, and experiences and difficulties getting the vaccine. We compared rates, overall and by certain characteristics, between workers of the same group, and between FS (n = 17,414) and non-food system (NFS) worker groups (n = 134,375), to determine if differences exist. FS worker groups were classified as "agriculture, forestry, fishing, or hunting" (AFFH; n = 2,730); "food manufacturing facility" (FMF; n = 3,495); and "food and beverage store" (FBS; n = 11,189). Compared with NFS workers, significantly lower percentages of FS workers reported >1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine or vaccine requirements at work or school, but overall vaccine experiences and difficulties among vaccinated FS workers were statistically similar to NFS workers. When we examined intent regarding COVID-19 vaccination among unvaccinated FS workers compared with NFS counterparts, we found a higher percentage of FMF and FBS workers were reachable whereas a higher percentage of AFFH workers were reluctant about vaccination, with differences by sociodemographic characteristics. Overall, results showed differences in uptake, intent, and attitudes between worker groups and by some sociodemographic characteristics. The findings reflect the diversity of FS workers and underscore the importance of collecting occupational data to assess health inequalities and of tailoring efforts to worker groups to improve confidence and uptake of vaccinations for infectious diseases such as COVID-19. The findings can inform future research, adult infectious disease interventions, and emergency management planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dietary energy density [kcal/g (kJ/g)] influences energy intake under controlled laboratory conditions. Little is known about the energy density of the diets of free-living persons. Because energy density investigations are a relatively new endeavor, there are neither standard calculation methods nor published nationally representative values. This paper examines the calculation of energy density based on systematic exclusion of beverage categories, presents data on variability, and compares values by sex, age, and race/ethnicity in a representative sample of U.S. adults. Mean daily dietary energy density values for adults (aged > 19 y) were calculated using two 24-h recalls from the Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals 1994-1996 based on food, food and liquid meal replacements, food and alcohol, food and juice, food and milk, food and juice and milk, food and energy-containing beverages, and food and all beverages. Energy density varied by calculation method, ranging from 0.94 to 1.85 kcal/g (3.93-7.74 kJ/g). Intraindividual-to-interindividual CV ratios were highest for the food and energy-containing beverages calculation. Men reported diets with a higher energy density than women for all calculation methods (P < 0.0001). There were differences by race/ethnicity and an inverse linear trend for age. These data indicate that beverage inclusion schemes should be clearly defined when reporting energy density values. In epidemiologic studies, calculations based on food and all beverages and food and energy-containing beverages may diminish associations with outcome variables. These nationally representative data, which provide an important frame of reference for other studies, indicate that dietary energy density differs by sex, age, and race/ethnicity. KEY WORDS: * energy density * intraindividual variation * methodology * diet

The article discusses the findings of the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance system (BRFSS) data which estimated the percentage of adults in the U.S. who met fruit and vegetable intake recommendations. Topics covered include the low percentage of U.S. adults meeting the recommendations, the state-specific percentage of respondents meeting federal recommendations, by sex, age, race/ethnicity, and income-to-poverty ratio, and the implications of the report for public health practice.

The article highlights the negative affects of obesity upon children's health as its associations with cardiovascular disease risk factors, type 2 diabetes, fatty liver disease, and victimization stemming from social stigma and poor mental health. It mentions the role of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).