Table 4. Overall Quality of Common Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Sold in Study Sample of Small-Size to Mid-Size Food Stores (N = 91) Participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Minneapolis–St. Paul, Minnesota, 2014.
| Overall Store Rating | No. (%) of Storesa |
|---|---|
| Fruit qualityb | |
| All A or A– | 32 (58) |
| A and B | 17 (31) |
| At least one C | 6 (11) |
| Total | 55 (100) |
| Vegetable qualityb | |
| All A or A– | 16 (62) |
| A and B | 3 (12) |
| At least one C | 7 (27) |
| Total | 26 (100) |
a
Quality data were collected on only 20 selected fruits and vegetables. Sample sizes for overall quality scores do not total 91 because they refer only to those stores that stocked 1 or more of the 20 varieties of fruits or vegetables for which data on quality were collected.
b
Quality scores were rated on the basis of the percentage of each type of food that was molded, wrinkled, shriveled, bruised, or wilted: excellent (A) = 0%; very good (A−) = 1% to10%; good (B) = 11% to 24%; fair (B−) = 25% to 50%, and poor (C) = 51% or more.