Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Apr 21;16(4):e0249333. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249333

Obesity under full fresh fruit and vegetable access conditions

Andres Silva 1,*, Pilar Jano 2, Nicolás Von Hausen 3
Editor: Petri Böckerman4
PMCID: PMC8059844  PMID: 33882061

Abstract

There is no agreement regarding the role of fresh fruit and vegetables’ affordability, accessibility and availability, or access in general, on obesity rates. In this article we investigated whether access to fresh fruit and vegetables is related to better biometric indicators such as weight and body mass index. Using mediation and matching methods and assuming that farmers and traditional market sellers have easy access to fruit and vegetables, we found that having better access is not associated to a reduction in weight or body mass index. Potential explanations for this result are that better access was not associated with fresh fruit and vegetables’ consumption and fruit and vegetables’ consumption was not associated with weight and body mass index. Also, fresh fruit and vegetables’ sellers had a higher weight and body mass index compared to the rest of the population but, a similar weight and body mass index compared to people with their same educational level. Therefore, variations on weight and body mass index were more associated with educational level rather than with access. Access may not be the single story to explain fruit and vegetable consumption.

1 Introduction

Fresh fruit and vegetables (FVs) are a natural source of vitamins, minerals and fiber and a critical component of a balanced diet [1]. A diet high in fresh FV leads to better health outcomes [2]. However, consuming recommended amounts of fresh FV can be constrained by access in terms of affordability, accessibility and availability. Affordability happens when a household is able to purchase its desirable food basket given its price. Accessibility corresponds to how easy it is to get to a food store location. Availability is the possibility to find the product in the store. Therefore, food access, at least, is a broad term that considers affordability, accessibility and availability.

The purpose of this article is to investigate whether a segment of the population with easy access to fresh FV has better biometric indicators, such as weight and Body Mass Index (BMI), compared to the rest of the population. Using the Encuesta Nacional de Salud (ENS, Chilean National Health Survey), we found that having better access is not associated to a reduction in weight or BMI. Potential explanations for this result are that: 1) according to a mediation analysis, better access was not associated with FV consumption and FV consumption was not associated with weight and BMI; and 2) according to a propensity score matching analysis, fresh FV sellers had a higher weight and BMI compared to the rest of the population but, a similar weight and BMI compared to people with their same educational level. Therefore, variations on weight and BMI were more associated with educational level rather than with access. For example, we found that higher education is linked with higher FV consumption and lower BMI.

Fresh FV sellers represent a population segment that can inform public policies. Based on our findings and with the objective of increasing consumption of fresh FV, public policies that improve educational level are likelier to lead to a larger impact on fresh FV consumption than policies that only facilitate fresh FV access, in terms of accessibility, affordability and availability. While fresh FV access can be a desirable condition in any food environment, we argue that, in some cases, the effect of fresh FV access can be overstated.

2 Background

A variety of health policies seek to encourage the consumption of fresh FV. On the demand side, health policies focus on providing information, educating children in schools, and looking for ways to reduce fresh FV prices by means of coupons or specific subsidies. On the supply side, substantial attention is paid to the existence of areas with limited access to affordable healthy food, also known as “food deserts” [3, 4]. From the access point of view, providing coupons and specific subsidies seeks to improve affordability, while increasing food distribution seeks to improve accessibility.

Previous studies have attempted to measure the role of food accessibility on health indicators such as consumption of fresh FV per capita and BMI, but measuring accessibility is problematic. People do not necessarily move in straight lines; therefore, distance to the closest food shop can be a misleading accessibility indicator [5]. Moreover, car availability in the household would also change, at least, accessibility conditions [6]. Recognizing that accessibility to healthy food is likely to play a relevant role in some food environments, and possibly, may interact with other determinants, it is unclear how we can argue effectiveness of a food policy without taking into account individual food accessibility conditions.

The underlying assumption is that a household located in a food desert has difficulties purchasing fresh FV. In this way, lack of fresh FV access would lead to an unhealthy food basket, and then, to a higher prevalence of malnutrition related diseases [7]. Previous studies document the existence of areas with limited access to healthy food in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada [3]. Therefore, there is an agreement that not all the population has guaranteed access to healthy food.

While there is an agreement regarding the existence of food deserts in some cities, it seems there is no such agreement on the actual effect of a food desert on purchasing behaviors and diet-related diseases [8]. Some research finds that food deserts are determinants in terms of prevalence of obesity and diet-related diseases [9, 10], other research finds an ambiguous relationship [4, 1113]. Ver Ploeg and Wilde find that households in the same neighborhood, and in the same food environment, can have different food purchasing patterns [14].

Some possible explanations of the unclear behavioral effect of food deserts may be linked with the empirical variable specification. LeClair and Aksan argue that to truly define a food desert, one would need to take into account the price-distance cost of food to understand consumer behavior, which would imply redefining food maps [15]. Furthermore, higher shopping frequency leads to less healthy food purchases, since consumers buy more temptation foods [16]. Supermarkets, having unhealthy and healthy foods, make all food more available to households [17]. Therefore, there is a lack of agreement regarding the effect of food deserts on fresh FV consumption.

Socio-demographic and lifestyle characteristics also play a relevant role in understanding fresh FV disparities [18]. High income and highly educated households purchase higher-quality food baskets (whole grain, lean meats, fish, low-fat dairy products, fresh FV) [4, 19]. Previous research does not show the causality path [19]. The mechanism how socio-demographic characteristics lead to a food consumption pattern is unclear. It is straightforward to believe that low-income households tend to buy highly-dense food since they contain cheaper calories than healthy food; therefore, it does not make sense to promote high-cost food to low-income households [19]. However, this mechanism can oversimplify the true problem.

In this study, we build upon previous research by providing empirical evidence regarding the link between education, household income, and food access, and biometric indicators (weight and BMI). In this way, we want to inform the debate on food deserts. We analyzed fresh FV sellers since we argue that they are a particular population group. In general, fresh FV sellers are economically modest and have a low educational level. To some extent, fresh FV sellers may resemble many low-skilled workers, but with access to fresh FV while at their work places. Based on the analysis of biometric indicators of fresh FV sellers, we obtained results that we expect contribute to generating an effective strategy to increase the consumption of fresh FV. To date, to the best of our knowledge, there are no studies available that analyze biometric or health indicators of fresh FV sellers.

3 Materials and methods

We compared a specific population segment, fresh FV sellers, with the rest of the country’s population. With this purpose, we divided our analysis into three parts. First, we compared a series of descriptive statistics (e.g. socio-demographics, disease prevalence, and biometric indicators) between these two groups. Second, using a mediation model, we explained the variability of obesity-related biometric indicators (weight and BMI) as a function of occupation (fresh FV sellers or not) while controlling for confounding factors (including income and education). Full and partial effects discussed in the original article by Baron and Kenny [20] can be better explained as direct and indirect effects [21]. Fresh FV sellers’ access (independent variable) can directly affect BMI (dependent variable) or, indirectly affect BMI through higher FV consumption (mediator variable). In our analysis, we estimate a separate mediation model for weight and BMI. Finally, using alternative matching specifications, we compared fresh FV sellers with the rest of the country. These three analyses are complementary in explaining the similarities and differences of fresh FV sellers with respect to the rest of the country.

3.1 Data

The ENS is the largest survey in Chile that collects information on transmissible and non-communicable diseases and their main risk factors. The first survey was conducted in 2003, and the second version, in 2009-10. We used this latter version for our analyses. The ENS sample design was built based on the National Population Census to have a representative sample at the country, regional, and zone (rural/urban) levels. The survey was conducted to individuals over 15 years old. The response rate was 85%. Some respondents were contacted by phone later to complete some missing values. The complete documentation and data set are available at the Ministry of Health in Chile or from the authors upon request.

The survey included direct self-reported questions about the health status of the respondents as well as bio-physiological and biochemical measurements that involved taking samples for laboratory tests and a set of biometric indicators. The self-reported questions included education level, household income level, marital status, age, lifestyle variables such as physical activity, fresh FV consumption, and occupation, including farmers and traditional fresh FV sellers, among other variables of interest. The biometric measures, such as waist diameter, height and weight, therefore BMI, were conducted by health-care professionals. In fact, taking into account the survey’s complexity, the data collection process included the participation of nurses, who examined the respondents and sent urine and blood samples to be analyzed in laboratory facilities. The analysis of the ENS serves as an input for national health planning and for the estimation of disease burden and attributable load in Chile.

Based on these data, we generated evidence regarding the similarities and differences in biometric indicators and fresh FV consumption of fresh FV sellers and the rest of the adult population in Chile. We assumed farmers and traditional market fresh FV sellers in the sample had relatively easy access to fresh FV because, in general, farmers and traditional market fresh FV sellers are also owners. In fact, 77% of traditional market fresh FV sellers own the fresh FVs they sell [22]. In what follows, we explain the estimation methods used.

3.2 Mediation model

The mediation model was developed by Baron and Kenny [20]. A discussion can be found in the work presented by Iacobucci et al. [23] and Zhao et al. [21], and a review of health-related applications can be found in the work by Liu et al. [24]. In our case, fresh FV sellers have better access to fresh FV products, which may be linked to their FV consumption, and therefore, their weight and BMI.

Using a mediation model, we estimated these two effects in two different equations. In the first equation, we tested whether being a fresh FV seller is associated with higher FV consumption. Then, in the second equation, we tested whether FV consumption was associated to a change on weight and BMI. In our case, the indirect effect corresponds to the product of these coefficients of the mediation path. In both equations, we controlled for age, gender, marital status, education, and income. We also controlled for height in the weight model.

3.3 Matching model

We needed to test whether the differences in weight (in kilograms) and BMI remained after controlling for confounding factors. Given that being a fresh FV seller is expected to be non-random, we implemented a propensity score matching technique to estimate the likelihood of being a fresh FV seller based on the variables available in the survey. In this way, we needed to create a balanced sample for both groups (fresh FV sellers and the rest of the population). Mathematically, we estimated the following expression:

p(Xi)=Pr(D=1|Xi)=E(D|Xi) (1)

Where D represents the fresh FV seller occupation dummy variable, and X is a group of socioeconomic variables of the fresh FV seller. For the propensity score matching to be a valid technique for estimating the likelihood of participation, three conditions must be satisfied. First, overlap, a valid counterfactual must exist, that we show graphically. Second, the sample should be balanced across the mentioned variables, given the propensity score. Third, unconfoundedness of participation given the propensity score, meaning that once the sample is balanced, the expected probability of being a fresh FV seller for all people should be the same.

Given the desire to explore the differences in biometric indicators between fresh FV sellers and similar people in the sample, we computed the average difference of the objective biometric indicators between matched people for the mentioned outcomes as the Average Treatment Effect (ATE). Thus, the fresh FV seller differential is computed as follows:

τ=E(Y1i|Di=1,p(Xi))-E(Y0i|Di=0,p(Xi)) (2)

Where Y1 and Y0 are the potential outcomes for obesity-related biometric variables (weight and BMI) in fresh FV sellers and the rest of the population, respectively. There are many possible matching criteria. In this article, we implemented nearest neighbor matching using three and six closest neighbors and the bilevel optimization estimator (BLOP) for robustness purposes.

In the nearest neighbor matching, each observation in the treated group is matched with the nearest N observations in the control group. The distances are computed as the score differences. However, there are many matching criteria and the value of N needs to be specified by the researcher. To the best of our knowledge, BLOP, recently developed by Díaz et al, is the only matching criterion that is data-driven [25]. In the BLOP estimator, each treated observation is matched with a weighted average of the control group. There are two optimization problems, finding a weight that minimizes the distance between treated and control observations and finding a weight that minimizes the distance between a treated observation and a weighted average of control observations. As a result, the two optimization problems produce a unique vector of weights for each treated observation [25].

In the coming section, we present the results, starting with the prevalence of diseases and risk factors, as well as weight categories, for fresh FV sellers compared to the rest of the national population, followed by the results of the Mediation and Matching models.

4 Results

4.1 Descriptive statistics

The upper part of Table 1 shows the prevalence of selected related-health variables by occupation (fresh FV sellers versus the rest of the country statistics). Compared with the rest of the country, fresh FV sellers present less prevalence of depression, less high back pain and less kidney damage. The middle part of Table 1 shows that fresh FV sellers practice significantly more physical activity. To some extent, it is expected that fresh FV sellers practice more physical activity since their occupation requires constant motion. Although it is possible that physical activity can explain at least part of the difference in disease prevalence, with this preliminary descriptive analysis, it is risky to infer a causal relationship.

Table 1. Prevalence of diseases by occupation.

Fresh FV Sellers Rest of Country t-stat significance
diabetes 7.00% 7.81% -0.24
hypertension 9.78% 8.32% 0.32
depression symptom 22.54% 37.71% -2.26 **
liver damage 0.95% 2.70% -1.11
lower back pain 19.93% 17.93% 0.33
higher back pain 4.36% 10.45% -1.68 *
kidney damage 0.55% 1.61% -1.79 *
cardiac risk high or very high 11.24% 14.46% -0.96
sleeping disorder 65.90% 63.54% 0.31
physical activity less than 1 hr/week 10.13% 36.51% -7.22 ***
physical activity more than 7 hrs/week 45.77% 23.51% 3.00 ***
normal 16.02% 34.22% -3.37 ***
overweight 46.68% 39.08% 1.04
obesity 33.08% 22.72% 1.41
morbid obesity 4.22% 2.22% 0.83

Source: ENS, 2010.

*** p<0.01,

** p<0.05,

* p<0.1.

Calculated using probability weights. The difference is tested using a regression in which the independent variable is a dummy variable that takes the value of one for a fresh FV seller and zero otherwise.

The lower part of Table 1 shows that the prevalence of normal BMI is lower in fresh FV sellers compared with the rest of the country. However, fresh FV sellers do not have significantly higher overweight or obesity compared to the rest of the population.

In order to get acquainted with the data, Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics of biometric indicators. The first two variables are dependent variables: weight and BMI. Following that, we present confounding factors such as education and income level, as well as other controls such as gender, marital status, geographic area, zone, habits, and age. As compared with the rest of the population, fresh FV sellers have a higher weight and BMI, and are slightly taller. Most of them are male, have lower education, lower income, belong to rural population segments and consume similar amounts of fresh FV, while having a higher salt intake, compared to the rest of the population. Therefore, these descriptive statistics show relevant sociodemographic differences between fresh FV sellers and the rest of the population. FV consumption, captured as a self-reported measure, is not significantly different between subsamples, and is near 3-3.2 portions per person a day, on average. As reference, the WHO recommends, at least, five portions per person a day. A more detailed analysis will allow us to establish if these differences change after controlling for confounding factors. Our study allows us to test whether the apparent greater BMI found in fresh FV sellers is associated with the occupation itself, or else, with other sociodemographic factors.

Table 2. Selected variables by occupation.

Fresh FV Sellers Rest of Country Difference
mean SD mean SD t-stat significance
Dependent variables
body mass index, BMI weight, in kilograms 28.73 (4.67) 27.33 (5.72) 2.18 **
78.49 (14.89) 72.15 (14.63) 2.96 ***
Gender
female 0.30 (0.46) 0.52 (0.50) -3.39 ***
male 0.70 (0.46) 0.48 (0.50) 3.39 ***
Marital status
single, never married 0.27 (0.44) 0.33 (0.47) -0.90
married couple 0.63 (0.48) 0.54 (0.50) 1.27
divorced 0.10 (0.30) 0.13 (0.33) -0.75
Education level
years of education 8.54 (3.83) 10.68 (4.01) -3.92 ***
years of education, mother 5.92 (3.72) 8.04 (4.47) -3.42 ***
Household income level
low, up to Ch$250 thousands 0.68 (0.47) 0.49 (0.50) 2.40 ***
mid-low, Ch$251 to 351 thousands 0.23 (0.42) 0.27 (0.44) -0.64
mid-high, Ch$451 to 851 thousands 0.10 (0.30) 0.16 (0.36) -1.17
high, Ch$851 thousands and more 0.00 (0.00) 0.08 (0.27) -10.69 ***
Geographic area
north 0.11 (0.31) 0.11 (0.32) -0.12
central 0.46 (0.50) 0.61 (0.49) -1.75 *
south 0.43 (0.50) 0.28 (0.45) 1.86 *
Zone
urban_person 0.54 (0.50) 0.88 (0.33) -4.61 ***
rural_person 0.46 (0.50) 0.12 (0.33) 4.61 ***
Habits
number of hours of sleep 7.25 (1.39) 7.49 (1.69) -1.23
FV portions, 1 portion = 80 g 3.35 (3.10) 3.08 (3.03) 0.53
salt consumption g/day 10.80 (2.38) 9.84 (2.96) 2.06 **
Other
age in years 46.35 (12.13) 41.46 (17.72) 3.06 ***
height, in meters 1.65 (0.09) 1.63 (0.10) 1.86 *
Observations 96 4,684

Note: Robust standard errors in parentheses,

*** p<0.01,

** p<0.05,

* p<0.1.

A fruit and vegetable portion corresponds to 80 grams. Calculated using probability weights. The difference is tested using a regression in which the independent variable is a dummy variable that takes the value of one for a fresh FV seller and zero otherwise.

4.2 Mediation and matching

The results we present in this subsection indicate that having better access to FVs is not associated to a reduction in weight or BMI. Potential explanations based on the results below are that: 1) according to the mediation analysis, better access was not associated with fresh FV consumption and FV consumption was not associated with weight and BMI; and 2) according to the propensity score matching analyses, fresh FV sellers had a higher weight and BMI compared to the rest of the population but, a similar weight and BMI compared to people with their same educational level. In what follows, we present the mediation model results followed by the matching results.

Table 3 shows the mediation regression results using weight (columns 2 and 3) and BMI (columns 4 and 5) as dependent variables (outcomes). The purpose of the mediation model is to test whether being a fresh FV seller, through the mediation path, is associated to changes in the outcomes, weight and BMI. The mediation path is decomposed into two portions and each one is represented by an equation. The first mediation equation, in columns 2 and 4, tests whether being a fresh FV seller is linked with changes on FV consumption. The second mediation equation, in columns 3 and 5, tests whether FV consumption is linked with changes in the outcome variables (weight and BMI).

Table 3. Mediation regressions of BMI and weight.

Variables Weight Model BMI Model
FV (portions) Weight (kgs) FV (portions) BMI
fv_portions 0.0291 -0.00115
(0.0726) (0.0293)
fresh FV seller 0.397 5.592* 0.397 1.890*
(0.604) (2.963) (0.604) (1.199)
age (years) 0.0121*** 0.0900*** 0.0121*** 0.0385***
(0.00280) (0.0142) (0.00280) (0.00558)
female 0.242*** 0.152 0.242*** 0.831***
(0.0804) (0.550) (0.0804) (0.160)
married -0.0382 5.137*** -0.0382 1.959***
(0.102) (0.500) (0.102) (0.202)
divorced -0.0490 2.142*** -0.0490 0.846***
(0.139) (0.683) (0.139) (0.276)
mid education (8– 12 years) 0.372*** -0.157 0.372*** -0.306
(0.108) (0.533) (0.108) (0.214)
high education (more than 12 years) 0.611*** -0.957 0.611*** -0.715**
(0.147) (0.733) (0.147) (0.293)
mid-low income 0.230** -0.424 0.230** -0.297
(0.0976) (0.479) (0.0976) (0.194)
mid-high income 0.346*** 1.412** 0.346*** 0.438*
(0.128) (0.629) (0.128) (0.255)
high income 0.309* -0.842 0.309* -0.538
(0.180) (0.886) (0.180) (0.357)
height 74.90***
(2.986)
constant 1.745*** -55.84*** 1.745*** 24.69***
(0.181) (5.147) (0.181) (0.364)
var(e.fv_portions) 6.884*** (0.144) 6.884*** (0.144)
var(e.bmi) 165.6*** (3.458) 27.14*** (0.567)
Observations 4,588 4,588 4,588 4,588

Note: Robust standard errors in parentheses,

*** p<0.01,

** p<0.05,

* p<0.1.

Columns 2 and 3 show the mediation regression results using FV consumption as a mediator and weight as a dependent variable. Columns 4 and 5 show the mediation regression results using FV consumption as a mediator and BMI as a dependent variable. Fresh FV means fresh fruit and vegetables and FV means FVs.

In the first mediation equation (columns 2 and 4), FV portions (consumption) is explained by fresh FV seller (access) and other controls such as age, gender, marital status, education, and income. In the second mediation equation (columns 3 and 5), the outcome is explained by FV portions, fresh FV seller, and the same controls included in the first mediation equation. The equation that estimates weight as outcome, also includes height as a control variable.

The mediation equation results indicate that being a FV seller is not associated with consuming more FVs (columns 2 and 4) and FV consumption is not associated with weight or BMI (columns 3 and 5). For the weight equation, the indirect effect is 0.012, while for the BMI equation, it is -0.0004. These magnitudes were calculated multiplying the FV seller coefficient by the FV portions coefficient, for each of the outcome variables. Table 4 shows that none of these indirect effects are significantly different from zero. Therefore, consistently, there is no evidence that FV consumption is acting as a mediator. According to the Baron and Kenny approach, in our results there is direct-only nonmediation (no mediation).

Table 4. Significance testing of indirect effect on biometric indicators.

Estimates Weight BMI
Sobel Monte Carlo Sobel Monte Carlo
Indirect Effect 0.012 0.011 -0.000 -0.000
(0.034) (0.056) (0.012) (0.021)
z-value 0.342 0.206 -0.039 -0.016
p-value 0.732 0.837 0.969 0.987

Note: Standard errors in parentheses. The standard errors for the Monte Carlo approach are obtained after bootstrapping the same number of repetitions than the observations. These results are obtained using the MEDSEM command in Stata developed by Mehmetoglu [43]. The two test results show no evidence of mediation effect on weight or BMI.

As mentioned, the main result from the regression on FV portions is that being a FV seller is not associated with a change on FV consumption (see Table 3 columns 2 and 4). Additional results obtained from these regressions on FV portions indicate that being a woman is associated with a higher FV consumption than being a man, and they consume, on average, 0.2 FV portions more a day. Having a high education level is associated to 0.6 portions more compared to having a low education level, and having a high income level is associated to 0.3 FV portions more a day compared to a low-income level. These two coefficients, the coefficient of high income and of high education on FV consumption, are not significantly different between each other.

The main result obtained from the regressions on biometric indicators presented in Table 3 (columns 3 and 5) is that FV consumption is not associated with weight or BMI. Some additional results from these regressions are that age, gender (female), not being single, and having a middle income level compared to a low income level are associated to higher BMIs. Moreover, a high education is associated to lower BMIs, compared to a low education. These regressions also show that being a FV seller is associated to higher weight and BMI compared to the rest of the population. In fact, FV sellers’ weight is 5.6 kilograms higher, while their BMI is 1.9 units higher. Therefore, despite the easy fresh FV access, FV sellers have a significantly higher weight and BMI compared to the rest of the population.

Finally, we conducted a set of propensity score matching. Our treated group consisted of individuals that were fresh FV sellers, while our control group was formed by the remaining subjects in the database. For clarification, we have not conducted an experiment. Assigning a group as treatment and a group as control is part of the matching procedure. Table 5 shows three alternative specifications using the full sample (columns 2 and 3) and a subsample considering only the population with low education level (less than eight years of formal education, columns 4 and 5). Using the full sample, the three matching specifications consistently show that fresh FV sellers weight around 6 to 9 kilograms more than the control group and have a BMI 2 to 3 units higher. Using the low educated subsample, there is not a significant difference between fresh FV sellers and the rest of the population. According to the matching results, the variations on weight and BMI seem more linked with differences in education level rather than with being a FV seller.

Table 5. Average treatment effect using alternative specifications.

Variables Full Sample Low Education Sample
Weight (kgs) BMI Weight (kgs) BMI
3 nearest-neighbor 9.134*** 2.796*** 6.770 2.644
(2.152) (0.749) (4.613) (1.865)
6 nearest-neighbor 7.978*** 2.541*** 4.291 1.602
(2.019) (0.578) (3.403) (1.458)
BLOP matching 6.238*** 1.827*** 4.334 0.972
(1.956) (0.758) (2.823) (0.740)

Note: Robust standard errors in parentheses,

*** p<0.01,

** p<0.05,

* p<0.1.

Columns 2 and 3 show the Average Treatment Effect (ATE) using the full sample. Columns 4 and 5 show ATE using only the low education subsample.

One of the assumptions required to use the matching estimators is the overlap assumption, which states that each individual has a positive probability of receiving each treatment level. The overlap assumption is satisfied when there is a chance of seeing observations in both the control and the treatment groups at each combination of covariate values. Figs 1 and 2 show the plots of the estimated densities of the probability of being a fresh FV seller. These plots can be used to check whether the overlap assumption is violated. Finally, Tables 6 and 7 present the covariate balance summary for outcome variables (weight and BMI).

Fig 1. 6-nearest neighbor weight matching balance.

Fig 1

Fig 2. 6-nearest neighbor BMI matching balance.

Fig 2

Table 6. Covariate balance summary weight matching 6 nearest-neighbor.

Raw Matched
Number of observations 4,625 9,250
Treated observations 92 4,625
Control observations 4,533 4,625
Standardized differences Variance ratio
Raw Matched Raw Matched
age 0.216 0.001 0.516 0.493
woman -0.657 -0.014 0.877 1.005
marital status—single 0.043 0.103 0.998 0.961
marital status—married 0.040 0.216 0.946 0.648
education—mid -0.120 0.044 1.020 0.990
education—high -0.510 -0.077 0.210 0.873
income -0.589 -0.265 0.355 0.510

Table 7. Covariate balance summary BMI matching 6 nearest-neighbor.

Raw Matched
Number of observations 4,596 9,192
Treated observations 92 4,596
Control observations 4,504 4,596
Standardized differences Variance ratio
Raw Matched Raw Matched
age 0.218 0.007 0.519 0.498
woman -0.657 -0.012 0.877 1.005
marital status—single 0.042 0.094 0.998 0.965
marital status—married -0.037 -0.213 0.950 0.651
education—mid -0.121 0.045 1.020 0.989
education—high -0.513 -0.078 0.208 0.871
income -0.592 -0.268 0.354 0.508

Comparing the results obtained through mediation and matching, we observe that fresh FV sellers have higher obesity indicators than the rest of the population. We consistently found, throughout our estimations, that having better fresh FV access is not associated to a lower BMI. Our results suggest that fresh FV sellers’ BMI is more linked to their education level rather than to their fresh FV access conditions.

5 Discussion

Regarding the debate on ways to increase consumption of fresh FV, previous literature has mainly pointed at affordability, accessibility, and availability. As a part of accessibility, food deserts, that is, places with limited access to healthy food, have been suggested as determinants of obesity [3, 4]. As of affordability, a healthy food basket tends to be more expensive than an unhealthy one in terms of energy density [26, 27]. In fact, there is an inverse relation between energy density (megajoule/kilogram) and energy cost (US$/megajoule), such that energy-dense foods composed of refined grains, added sugars, or fats may represent the lowest-cost option to the consumer [26]. Also, subsidies implementation, vouchers distribution, and Value Added Tax (VAT) decreases have been studied as alternatives to reduce fresh FV prices, making them more affordable [28, 29]. The underlying assumption is that making fresh FV more accessible and more affordable, would improve consumers’ intake of fresh FV.

In this article, we revisited fresh FV access as an obesity determinant to inform the debate. We used the ENS in Chile to assess fresh FV sellers’ obesity-related indicators such as weight and BMI levels. This population segment has guaranteed access to fresh FV, allowing us to control for fresh FV access in our estimations.

In order to investigate if better FV access is related to a reduction in obesity indicators, we used two different methodologies: mediation regression and propensity score matching. We found that having better fresh FV access is not related to a reduction in weight or BMI. Our mediation analyses results show that better access was not associated with FV consumption and FV consumption was not associated with weight or BMI. In other words, we found no evidence that FV consumption acts as a mediator in the regression of FV seller (representing access) on weight or BMI. Our propensity score matching analyses indicate that fresh FV sellers had a higher weight and BMI compared to the rest of the population but, a similar weight and BMI compared to people with their same educational level. So, variations on weight and BMI were more associated with educational level rather than with access.

Based on our results, public policies that focus on improving fresh FV access might not lead to changes in BMI. Our findings are consistent with some of the previous research. For example, some studies on individual grocery store entry show that improving neighborhood FV access did not change residents’ FV consumption or BMI [30, 31].

As to the relation between FV consumption and weight/BMI, the evidence in the literature is mixed and seems to depend upon methodology. For example, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) show that an increase in FV consumption has either no effect on body weight, or a small reduction [32, 33]. Prospective observational studies, in general, show that consuming more FVs reduces anthropometric parameters and risk of overweight/obesity, abdominal obesity, or weight gain [34, 35]. Therefore, our result that relates FV consumption with weight/BMI is more consistent with results obtained in RCTs. Our result is also consistent with another study conducted in South America (Perú), that finds that greater FV consumption is unrelated to overweight or obesity [36]. Consistent with our results, the later study also finds that overweight or obesity is related to education level and socioeconomic status. Our result that high income is related to higher FV consumption compared to low income is also consistent with Middaugh and coauthors’ finding that lower-income households in the US, consume less fresh FV than higher-income households [37].

We also found that individual characteristics such as gender, marital status, and age are also significantly correlated with BMI. Therefore, if programs aiming to reduce BMI want to be more effective, they should also consider the profile or characteristics of people that tend to have higher BMI, who in our results tend to be women, married individuals, divorced individuals, and older people.

We cannot extrapolate our findings to any food environment, especially considering Hawkes’ [38] recent argument that food availability has a multi-dimensional nature that cannot be explained by any single story. However, our results may potentially be extrapolated to food environments where access to fresh FV is either granted or cheap. Further, we argue that our results may help rethink some food policies. Price changes, such as dropping the VAT from fresh FV, represent a fiscal cost while their actual effect on BMI is unclear [39, 40]. For example, experimental evidence shows that price discounts in healthier foods make more impulsive individuals increase their purchase of less healthy, high-energy-dense foods [41]. Our findings suggest that creating incentives to locate food stores, giving fresh FV vouchers, and donating fresh FV baskets may not lead to significant BMI reductions if these policies are not associated with an education campaign.

Educational strategies, rather than eliminating food deserts, are likelier to be effective in improving diet quality and reducing food inequalities [4, 42]. Consistently, we found that high education level was associated to a lower BMI and a higher FV consumption. Of course, we cannot argue that food deserts would not lead to any impact in any circumstance. However, evidence in this article shows that education is more linked to FV consumption than fresh FV access. Therefore, education should be considered when designing obesity-related policies and programs.

Our study is not free from limitations. The cross-sectional nature of our data as well as having a relatively small sample of fresh FV sellers, may be a limitation. In addition, the survey was not designed with the intention of measuring the fresh FV sellers’ lifestyle. Finally, another potential limitation is that our argument that fresh FV sellers have better access to fresh FV products, cannot be tested directly.

In the future, we would be interested in deepening our understanding of the relationship among income, education, fresh FV access, and health. We also wish to conduct experimental work to change consumption behavior. For example, we are interested in investigating how different treatments in a target population can improve consumption of fresh FVs.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Gloria Tarres for improving the English, grammar and flow of the article. Any errors and shortcomings are our own. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their institutions. Ethical approval was not required for this work as no new empirical data were collected.

Data Availability

The dataset is holded by the Subsecretaria de Salud Pública del Ministerio de Salud de Chile. The dataset is publicly available by request at https://www.portaltransparencia.cl/. File name: ENS-2009-2010-DEPTO.EPIDEMIOLOGIA-MINSALSTATA-Version.rar. The documentation is available at http://www.repositoriodigital.minsal.cl/handle/2015/601.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the National Agency for Research and Development (ANID) / FONDECYT de Iniciación/2020 – 11201115. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1. Rui Hai Liu. Health-Promoting Components of Fruits and Vegetables in the Diet. Advances in Nutrition. 2013;4(3):384S–392S. 10.3945/an.112.003517 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Stadler G, Oettingen G, Gollwitzer PM. Intervention effects of information and self-regulation on eating fruits and vegetables over two years. Health Psychology. 2010;29(3):274–283. 10.1037/a0018644 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Allcott H, Diamond R, Dubé JP, Handbury J, Rahkovsky I, Schnell M. Food deserts and the causes of nutritional inequality. across the United States. National Bureau of Economic Research; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Beaulac J, Kristjansson E, Cummins S. Peer reviewed: A systematic review of food deserts, 1966-2007. Preventing Chronic Disease. 2009;6(3):A105. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Shaw HJ. The consuming geographies of food: Diet, food deserts and obesity. Routledge; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Bader MD, Purciel M, Yousefzadeh P, Neckerman KM. Disparities in neighborhood food environments: Implications of measurement strategies. Economic Geography. 2010;86(4):409–430. 10.1111/j.1944-8287.2010.01084.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Bridle-Fitzpatrick S. Food deserts or food swamps?: A mixed-methods study of local food environments in a Mexican city. Social Science & Medicine. 2015;142:202–213. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.08.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Larsen K, Gilliland J. A farmers’ market in a food desert: Evaluating impacts on the price and availability of healthy food. Health & Place. 2009;15(4):1158–1162. 10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.06.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Hendrickson D, Smith C, Eikenberry N. Fruit and vegetable access in four low-income food deserts communities in Minnesota. Agriculture and Human Values. 2006;23(3):371–383. 10.1007/s10460-006-9002-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Morris AA, McAllister P, Grant A, Geng S, Kelli HM, Kalogeropoulos A, et al. Relation of Living in a “Food Desert” to Recurrent Hospitalizations in Patients With Heart Failure. The American Journal of Cardiology. 2019;123(2):291–296. 10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.10.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Schafft KA, Jensen EB, Hinrichs CC. Food deserts and overweight schoolchildren: Evidence from Pennsylvania. Rural Sociology. 2009;74(2):153–177. 10.1111/j.1549-0831.2009.tb00387.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Pitts SBJ, Wu Q, McGuirt JT, Sharpe PA, Rafferty AP. Impact on Dietary Choices after Discount Supermarket Opens in Low-Income Community. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior. 2018;50(7):729–735. 10.1016/j.jneb.2018.03.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Rodier F, Durif F, Ertz M. Food deserts: is it only about a limited access? British Food Journal. 2017;119(7):1495–1510. 10.1108/BFJ-09-2016-0407 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Ver Ploeg M, Wilde PE. How do food retail choices vary within and between food retail environments? Food Policy. 2018;79:300–308. 10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.03.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. LeClair MS, Aksan AM. Redefining the food desert: Combining GIS with direct observation to measure food access. Agriculture and Human Values. 2014;31(4):537–547. 10.1007/s10460-014-9501-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Rudi J, Çakır M. Vice or virtue: How shopping frequency affects healthfulness of food choices. Food Policy. 2017;69(C):207–217. 10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.04.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Freire T, Rudkin S. Healthy food diversity and supermarket interventions: Evidence from the Seacroft Intervention Study. Food Policy. 2018;83:125–138. 10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.12.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Azagba S, Sharaf MF. Disparities in the frequency of fruit and vegetable consumption by socio-demographic and lifestyle characteristics in Canada. Nutrition Journal. 2011;10(1):118. 10.1186/1475-2891-10-118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Darmon N, Drewnowski A. Does social class predict diet quality? The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2008;87(5):1107–1117. 10.1093/ajcn/87.5.1107 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.SERCOTEC. Catastro Nacional de Ferias Libres. Servicio de Cooperación Técnica–SERCOTEC, Chilean Government; 2016.
  • 21. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1986;51(6):1173–1182. 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Iacobucci D, Saldanha N, & Deng X. A meditation on mediation: Evidence that structural equations models perform better than regressions Journal of Consumer Psychology. 2007;17(2):139–153. 10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70020-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Zhao X, Lynch JG Jr, & Chen Q. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis Journal of Consumer Research 2010;37(2), 197–206. 10.1086/651257 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Liu SH, Ulbricht CM, Chrysanthopoulou SA, & Lapane KL. Implementation and reporting of causal mediation analysis in 2015: a systematic review in epidemiological studies. BMC Research Notes. 2016;9(1):354. 10.1186/s13104-016-2163-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Díaz J, Rau T, Rivera J. A matching estimator based on a bilevel optimization problem. Review of Economics and Statistics. 2015;97(4):803–812. 10.1162/REST_a_00504 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Drewnowski A, Specter SE. Poverty and obesity: the role of energy density and energy costs. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2004;79(1):6–16. 10.1093/ajcn/79.1.6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Darmon N, Drewnowski A. The economics of obesity: Dietary energy density and energy cost. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2005;82(1):265S–273S. 10.1093/ajcn/82.1.265S [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. McFadden A, Green JM, Williams V, McLeish J, McCormick F, Fox-Rushby J, et al. Can food vouchers improve nutrition and reduce health inequalities in low-income mothers and young children: A multi-method evaluation of the experiences of beneficiaries and practitioners of the Healthy Start programme in England. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1):148. 10.1186/1471-2458-14-148 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Niebylski ML, Redburn KA, Duhaney T, Campbell NR. Healthy food subsidies and unhealthy food taxation: A systematic review of the evidence. Nutrition. 2015;31(6):787–795. 10.1016/j.nut.2014.12.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Cummins S, Flint E, Matthews SA. New neighborhood grocery store increased awareness of food access but did not alter dietary habits or obesity. Health Affairs 2014;33(2):283–291. 10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0512 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Elbel B, Moran A, Dixon LB, Kiszko K, Cantor J, Abrams C, et al. Assessment of a government-subsidized supermarket in a high-need area on household food availability and children’s dietary intakes. Public Health Nutrition 2015;18(15):2881–2890. 10.1017/S1368980015000282 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Kaiser KA, Brown AW, Bohan Brown MM, Shikany JM, Mattes RD, Allison DB. Increased fruit and vegetable intake has no discernible effect on weight loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2014;100(2):567–576. 10.3945/ajcn.114.090548 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Mytton OT, Nnoaham K, Eyles H, Scarborough P, Mhurchu CN. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of increased vegetable and fruit consumption on body weight and energy intake. BMC public health. 2014;14(1):886. 10.1186/1471-2458-14-886 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Schlesinger S, Neuenschwander M, Schwedhelm C, Hoffmann G, Bechthold A, Boeing H, et al. Food groups and risk of overweight, obesity, and weight gain: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies. Advances in Nutrition 2019;10(2):205–218. 10.1093/advances/nmy092 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Schwingshackl L, Hoffmann G, Kalle-Uhlmann T, Arregui M, Buijsse B, Boeing H. Fruit and vegetable consumption and changes in anthropometric variables in adult populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. PloS one 2015;10(10):e0140846. 10.1371/journal.pone.0140846 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Arribas-Harten C, Battistini-Urteaga T, Rodriguez-Teves MG, Bernabe-Ortiz A. Association between obesity and fruit and vegetable consumption: a population-based study in Peru. Revista Chilena de Nutrición. 2015;42(3):241–247. 10.4067/S0717-75182015000300003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Middaugh AL, Fisk PS, Brunt A, Rhee YS. Few associations between income and fruit and vegetable consumption. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior. 2012;44(3):196–203. 10.1016/j.jneb.2011.10.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Hawkes C. Food affordability: the danger of the single story. Blog. 2020. https://www.thebetterfoodjourney.com/blog/food-affordability-the-danger-of-the-single-story#. [Google Scholar]
  • 39. An R. Effectiveness of subsidies in promoting healthy food purchases and consumption: A review of field experiments. Public Health Nutrition. 2013;16(7):1215–1228. 10.1017/S1368980012004715 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Epstein LH, Jankowiak N, Nederkoorn C, Raynor HA, French SA, Finkelstein E. Experimental research on the relation between food price changes and food-purchasing patterns: A targeted review. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2012;95(4):789–809. 10.3945/ajcn.111.024380 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Giesen JCAH, Havermans RC, Nederkoorn C, Jansen A. Impulsivity in the supermarket. Responses to calorie taxes and subsidies in healthy weight undergraduates. Appetite. 2012;58(1):6–10. 10.1016/j.appet.2011.09.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Block JP, Subramanian S. Moving beyond “food deserts”: reorienting United States policies to reduce disparities in diet quality. PLoS Medicine. 2015;12(12):e1001914. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001914 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Mehmetoglu M. medsem: a Stata package for statistical mediation analysis. International Journal of Computational Economics and Econometrics. 2018;8(1):63–78. 10.1504/IJCEE.2018.088321 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Petri Böckerman

20 Apr 2020

PONE-D-20-02163

Obesity under Full Fruit and Vegetable Access Conditions: Expected and Unexpected Results

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Silva,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The revised version should address all comments in the reports.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 04 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Petri Böckerman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please expand the abstract of your study, following PLOS ONE submission criteria (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-abstract).

3. Please include a caption for figures 1 and 2.

4. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately.  These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF.

<h3> </h3>

5. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 2 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

6. We note you have included tables to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Tables 5-11 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to each Table.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: GENERAL

This paper is purportedly about fruit and vegetable “access,” but concepts are poorly defined, and often conflated. The authors makes unfounded assumptions and arrive at unsupported conclusions. There is lack of recognition about the substantial limitations in the study design. The text would benefit from review by someone who is a native English speaker, although problems with English are not the main issues.

SPECIFIC

Overall:

- Constructions like “According to [4]” (line 10) are quite odd. Other examples of similar constructions appear on all of the following lines: 65, 71, 74, 140, and 274.

Abstract:

- “access” meaning what? (even parenthetically) One or more of five dimensions discussed later?

- “education” defined how? (even parenthetically) Years of schooling? Subject-matter expertise?

- “income” defined how? (even parenthetically) For individuals / households? Absolute / relative?

- What are “produce sellers”? Farm-stand workers? Farmers? Produce-store owners? Fruit-cart vendors?

- What does “granted access” mean?

Intro:

- Line 2: Fruits and vegetables do not have to be “fresh” to be “produce.” Frozen, canned, dried, and jarred fruits and vegetables also count.

- Line 3: Produce may not be “necessary” for a healthy diet. While most healthful diets include produce--and many of the world’s longest lived people eat predominantly plants--there are traditional cultures living almost exclusively on animal products (e.g., Inuit, Maasai) who enjoy excellent health.

- Line 10: the authors recognize that “access” has at least five distinct dimensions and then conclude (using the word “So”) that they should only focus on three of these dimensions? (ignoring the other two?) Also, it is not clear (in all instances beyond this point in the text) if “access” means “availability”, “accessibility”, “affordability”, or some combination(s). For example, Line 17: “car availability would also change access conditions.” So in this case, “access” would mean “accessibility” only, right?

- Line 21: the authors state they “attempted to control for it” but it seems more like they were using it as an effect modifier.

- Lines 22, 25, and elsewhere: what is “granted access”? On lines 31-32, the authors seem to imply it has something to do with being “owners” but it is not clear what they mean.

- Lines 29-30: it is hard to appreciate how “agriculture workers,” “farmers,” and “traditional market produce sellers” are all categorized as “produce sellers.” For example, the first two groups of workers might be field hands who sell *nothing* at all. The authors go on to say (on line 32) that 77% of “produce sellers” own the produce that they sell. So what about the other 23%? Why would the authors assume any “produce sellers” have “more accessibility” or “more affordability”? Where is the data? In the U.S., the exact opposite is true; farm workers often have the *least* access to produce and are the *most* food insecure (e.g., https://civileats.com/2011/09/26/hunger-in-the-fields/). The details on lines 29-34 represent the set-up for the entire study, but these ideas seem to be completely unfounded.

- Line 45: “FV access”, meaning what exactly?

- This whole introduction is odd. It reads a bit like a long abstract or detailed outline of the whole paper. I suggest moving some details into the abstract. Other details belong in the other (more usual) sections of the paper.

Background

- Again: “access” is mentioned several times and it is not clear that it means the same thing in all cases. The authors need to be clear what they mean.

- The authors also need to be clear if “FV” (fruits and vegetables) includes only fresh or also frozen, canned, dried, and jarred (and defend their choice).

- Lines 76-79: I have no idea what either of these two sentences mean: “Therefore, the lack of agreement regarding the behavioral effect of food deserts may enhance the need to analyze food accessibility beyond a food environmental condition. Food access is likely to result from

the interaction of a household characteristics and its food environment.”

Materials and Methods:

- this entire analysis is based on self-reported data? There is no discussion of item testing, validity, or reliability. There is no mention of sampling weights or how analyses accounted for the complex survey data. There are no details about participation or response rates. There is no discussion about missing data or how it was addressed.

Results:

- Line 170-171: regarding “The higher prevalence of hypertension in Table 1 can be explained by the higher salt intake shown in Table 2,” absolutely not! Cross-sectional correlations never *explain* anything. Moreover, salt but one contributor to blood pressure.

- Line 174: is “compensated” by? (not the right wording for distributions that just happen to be what they are)

- Tables: why is the comparison group for Table 2 the “rest of the country” (correct) whereas for Table 1 it is the “country,” presumably also including the “produce sellers (incorrect)?

- neither education nor income are ever defined; also, “low,” “medium”, and “high” are never explained or justified.

- Lines 185-186: if “compared with the rest of the population, produce sellers consume a similar amount of FV,” what does that say about “granted access” (whatever that means)? To me it suggests it doesn’t exist and this whole study is based on a faulty premise.

- Lines 208: “education significantly leads to …”? No! This is a cross-sectional study. There are no valid causal (or directional) conclusions.

- Lines 210-211: Again, not “leads to.” Also, presumably the effect of better “access” (whatever that means) would be mediated through greater consumption. But greater consumption is not seen so the lack of change of BMI is not really surprising unless the authors are postulating different potential mechanisms/pathways.

- Line 214 and 215: “treated group”? “control group”? This is a cross-sectional observational study. It is not a trial.

Discussion

- Lines 234-235: regarding, “a healthy food basket tends to be more expensive than an unhealthy one,” this statement can be challenged. Several studies show the monetary costs for healtfhful foods being cheaper (e.g., dried bean, lentils, grains). Also, it depend if you are looking per calorie, per weight, or by satiating potential. Additionally, some research has factored in the “time cost” of foods (time needed for soaking, chopping, cooking, etc.). The authors should specify what they mean by “expensive” in this regard.

- Line 238: it is not clear how the “underlying assumption” of subsidies, vouchers, and taxes would have anything to do with access “geographically.”

- Line 242: Height (in the absence of BMI) is not an “obesity-related indicator;” it may be an indicator of nutritional adequacy, but that is something different.

- Line 244: whatever this study is, it absolutely is not “a natural experiment of a free food environment.” Again, this is a cross-sectional, observations study, with cohorts (heterogeneous mix of “produce sellers” vs. everyone else) having food environments that might not be meaningfully different.

- Line 249: Another “leads to” (absolutely not!)

- Line 266: how can results be extrapolated to “food environments” (never defined) “where access to FV is granted or cheap”? Working on a farm (say picking potatoes) does not guarantee the field worker “access” (in any sense) to fruits or vegetables in general (or even to potatoes specifically). Working on a farm certainly does not mean workers are offered any part of harvests (cheaply, or at all). Without data, this presumption is just fundamentally flawed.

- Line 276: the authors found an association with level of schooling (presumably, although “education” never defined or explained). They did not find some benefit for any educational strategy and, moreover, have no data to support “likely to be effective at increasing FV consumption.” For one reason, produce consumption was not even an outcome in this study—and if it was, there was no difference between the groups! For another, as already mentioned repeatedly, this was a cross-sectional study! (and one based on self-reported data, the reliability and validity of which are never mentioned).

Reviewer #2: This paper presents data from a natural experiment that allows access to produce to be eliminated as a variable to explain differences in BMI among populations. This is a very creative way to test several hypothesis regarding the role of various factors in contributing to BMI. The data were thoroughly analyzed and the results were presented with clarity.

My only critique of the paper is with the writing style. The first three paragraphs of the introduction are choppy and, in my opinion, don't clearly provide context for the study. The first sentence states "Among healthy foods, produce holds a place of privilege." There are two unsupported propositions here - that some foods are always healthy and others are not, and consuming the healthy foods is a privilege. I think it would be best to avoid such judgements and say something like this: Fresh fruits and vegetables (FV) are a natural source of vitamins, minerals and fiber and are a critical component of a healthy diet. Literature suggests that a diet high in FVs leads to better health outcomes. However, consuming recommended amounts of FVs can be constrained by availability, accessibility, affordability, acceptability and accommodation. Previous studies have attempted to measure the role of food access on health indicators such as consumption of FVs per capita and BMI, but measuring access is problematic. People do not necessarily move in straight lines . . .

I wasn't sure what was meant by, "Supermarkets make healthy and unhealthy food more available" (76)

There are also unusual phrases, such as "literature has enhanced the role of access." (7, 14)

We assume this sample has granted access (30, 60)

which forces to redefine food maps (73)

by pursuing to provide (89)

weighted (217)

contributing to improve their diet (239)

After the introduction, the writing becomes better.

These comments are easily addressed.

Overall, the paper makes an important contribution to our understanding of obesity rates and where interventions would be most effective.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Sean C Lucan

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 21;16(4):e0249333. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249333.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


21 Jul 2020

Answers to Reviewer #1

Overall:

- Constructions like “According to [4]” (line 10) are quite odd. Other examples of similar constructions appear on all of the following lines: 65, 71, 74, 140, and 274.

Authors: Thank you. The complete manuscript was reviewed by an English teacher, Master of Arts in linguistics/proofreader taking special attention to your comments.

Abstract:

- “access” meaning what? (even parenthetically) One or more of five dimensions discussed later?

- “education” defined how? (even parenthetically) Years of schooling? Subject-matter expertise?

- “income” defined how? (even parenthetically) For individuals / households? Absolute / relative?

- What are “produce sellers”? Farm-stand workers? Farmers? Produce-store owners? Fruit-cart vendors?

- What does “granted access” mean?

Authors: Thank you. We have revised the abstract to make explicit the terms that you mention. As requested, we have highlighted the added text and explicitly show the deleted text.

Intro:

- Line 2: Fruits and vegetables do not have to be “fresh” to be “produce.” Frozen, canned, dried, and jarred fruits and vegetables also count.

- Line 3: Produce may not be “necessary” for a healthy diet. While most healthful diets include produce--and many of the world’s longest lived people eat predominantly plants--there are traditional cultures living almost exclusively on animal products (e.g., Inuit, Maasai) who enjoy excellent health.

- Line 10: the authors recognize that “access” has at least five distinct dimensions and then conclude (using the word “So”) that they should only focus on three of these dimensions? (ignoring the other two?) Also, it is not clear (in all instances beyond this point in the text) if “access” means “availability”, “accessibility”, “affordability”, or some combination(s). For example, Line 17: “car availability would also change access conditions.” So in this case, “access” would mean “accessibility” only, right?

- Line 21: the authors state they “attempted to control for it” but it seems more like they were using it as an effect modifier.

- Lines 22, 25, and elsewhere: what is “granted access”? On lines 31-32, the authors seem to imply it has something to do with being “owners” but it is not clear what they mean.

- Lines 29-30: it is hard to appreciate how “agriculture workers,” “farmers,” and “traditional market produce sellers” are all categorized as “produce sellers.” For example, the first two groups of workers might be field hands who sell *nothing* at all. The authors go on to say (on line 32) that 77% of “produce sellers” own the produce that they sell. So what about the other 23%? Why would the authors assume any “produce sellers” have “more accessibility” or “more affordability”? Where is the data? In the U.S., the exact opposite is true; farm workers often have the *least* access to produce and are the *most* food insecure (e.g., https://civileats.com/2011/09/26/hunger-in-the-fields/). The details on lines 29-34 represent the set-up for the entire study, but these ideas seem to be completely unfounded.

Authors: Thank you. We have redefined the groups. Now, we do not take agricultural/farm workers into account. Close to 22% fruit and vegetable (FV) sellers do not own the products that they sell. In other words, they are employed by someone else to sell fruits and vegetables.

- Line 45: “FV access”, meaning what exactly?

- This whole introduction is odd. It reads a bit like a long abstract or detailed outline of the whole paper. I suggest moving some details into the abstract. Other details belong in the other (more usual) sections of the paper.

Authors: Thank you. We have revised the introduction to make explicit the terms that you mention. We have worked to make it flow better than before. Following the journal guidelines for a review, we highlighted the changes in the manuscript.

Background

- Again: “access” is mentioned several times and it is not clear that it means the same thing in all cases. The authors need to be clear what they mean.

- The authors also need to be clear if “FV” (fruits and vegetables) includes only fresh or also frozen, canned, dried, and jarred (and defend their choice).

- Lines 76-79: I have no idea what either of these two sentences mean: “Therefore, the lack of agreement regarding the behavioral effect of food deserts may enhance the need to analyze food accessibility beyond a food environmental condition. Food access is likely to result from the interaction of a household characteristics and its food environment.”

Authors: Thank you. We have revised this section to highlight access definition and reworded the mentioned statement. Following the journal guidelines for a review, we highlighted the changes in the manuscript.

Materials and Methods:

- this entire analysis is based on self-reported data? There is no discussion of item testing, validity, or reliability. There is no mention of sampling weights or how analyses accounted for the complex survey data. There are no details about participation or response rates. There is no discussion about missing data or how it was addressed.

Authors: We have included in the data section a more detailed description about the way the dataset is built, including information on the sampling weights and response rate.

Results:

- Line 170-171: regarding “The higher prevalence of hypertension in Table 1 can be explained by the higher salt intake shown in Table 2,” absolutely not! Cross-sectional correlations never *explain* anything. Moreover, salt but one contributor to blood pressure.

Authors: Thank you. We have changed that part.

- Line 174: is “compensated” by? (not the right wording for distributions that just happen to be what they are)

Authors: We agree and eliminated this wording.

- Tables: why is the comparison group for Table 2 the “rest of the country” (correct) whereas for Table 1 it is the “country,” presumably also including the “produce sellers (incorrect)?

Authors: Thank you for this comment. We remade Table 1 with rest of the country for consistency between tables 1 and 2.

- neither education nor income are ever defined; also, “low,” “medium”, and “high” are never explained or justified.

Authors: Thanks for pointing at that. We defined each category within Table 2.

- Lines 185-186: if “compared with the rest of the population, produce sellers consume a similar amount of FV,” what does that say about “granted access” (whatever that means)? To me it suggests it doesn’t exist and this whole study is based on a faulty premise.

Authors: We assume that FFV sellers have more access than the rest of the population. This assumption is based on the fact that farmers and traditional market FFV sellers, in general, are also owners. In fact, 77% of traditional market FFV sellers own the produce they sell (SERCOTEC, 2016). We eliminated agricultural workers that were categorized as FFV sellers from our sample, so that currently only farmers and traditional market FFV sellers are categorized as FFV sellers.

More access does not necessarily mean more FV consumption, and this is something that the food desert literature has made an effort in showing but results vary greatly. Under the assumption that FV sellers have more access that the rest of the population, in our sample, they do not consume more FV and are more obese. This is precisely the puzzle that made us investigate our research question. Our answer to this puzzle is mainly the lack of education. We believe this is an important contribution of this paper.

- Lines 208: “education significantly leads to …”? No! This is a cross-sectional study. There are no valid causal (or directional) conclusions.

Authors: We would like to thank the reviewer for this comment. We soften our language throughout the paper regarding causality. We understand that in medical research cross-sectional studies may be used to describe some feature of the population but cannot be used to show a causal effect. In the field of economics, “the notion of ceteris paribus—that is, holding all other (relevant) factors fixed—is at the crux of establishing a causal relationship. Simply finding that two variables are correlated is rarely enough to conclude that a change in one variable causes a change in another. After all, rarely can we run a controlled experiment that allows a simple correlation analysis to uncover causality. Instead, we can use econometric methods to effectively hold other factors fixed.” (Wooldridge, 2010, p.3). Therefore, we are using a matching technique in an attempt to provide a counterfactual. The ideal methodology would be to conduct a randomized experiment. So, this is a limitation of our paper. We added a paragraph in the discussion mentioning the limitations of our analysis, especially the cross-sectional nature of our data.

- Lines 210-211: Again, not “leads to.” Also, presumably the effect of better “access” (whatever that means) would be mediated through greater consumption. But greater consumption is not seen so the lack of change of BMI is not really surprising unless the authors are postulating different potential mechanisms/pathways.

Authors: Instead of “leads to” we have changed the wording to “associated with.”

The point of FV seller better access and FV consumption is responded above.

- Line 214 and 215: “treated group”? “control group”? This is a cross-sectional observational study. It is not a trial.

Authors: We would like to thank the reviewer for this comment. In fact, we do not conduct an experiment but we do conduct a matching procedure making an attempt to find a counterfactual group for FFV sellers. The names “treatment” and “control” stem from the first applications of these techniques but nowadays applications vary widely (Wooldridge, 2010). A part of the matching procedure is assigning a group as the “treatment” and a group as the “control.” So, based on the reviewer’s comment we added a footnote clarifying that we do not conduct an experiment.

Discussion

- Lines 234-235: regarding, “a healthy food basket tends to be more expensive than an unhealthy one,” this statement can be challenged. Several studies show the monetary costs for healtfhful foods being cheaper (e.g., dried bean, lentils, grains). Also, it depend if you are looking per calorie, per weight, or by satiating potential. Additionally, some research has factored in the “time cost” of foods (time needed for soaking, chopping, cooking, etc.). The authors should specify what they mean by “expensive” in this regard.

Authors: Thanks for pointing at that. We clarified that we refer to “expensive” in terms of energy density. We added a reference and an explanation regarding the relationship between energy density and energy cost.

- Line 238: it is not clear how the “underlying assumption” of subsidies, vouchers, and taxes would have anything to do with access “geographically.”

Authors: That paragraph was confusing, thank you for pointing it out. We rearranged and rephrased it to be more consistent with changes made in the introduction regarding accessibility and affordability.

- Line 242: Height (in the absence of BMI) is not an “obesity-related indicator;” it may be an indicator of nutritional adequacy, but that is something different.

Authors: Yes, thank you for this comment. We decided to maintain height as part of our analyses because it helps in the BMI interpretation, for example, if weight increases and BMI does not, it is easier to understand what is happening if we observe that height also increases. If the reviewer thinks we should eliminate height from the analyses, please let us know and we can eliminate it. Also, we added a footnote in the materials and methods section to clarify that we don’t use height as an obesity indicator.

- Line 244: whatever this study is, it absolutely is not “a natural experiment of a free food environment.” Again, this is a cross-sectional, observations study, with cohorts (heterogeneous mix of “produce sellers” vs. everyone else) having food environments that might not be meaningfully different.

Authors: Point taken. We eliminated the phrase “a natural experiment of a free food environment.”

- Line 249: Another “leads to” (absolutely not!)

Authors: Point taken. We changed “leads to” to “associated with.”

- Line 266: how can results be extrapolated to “food environments” (never defined) “where access to FV is granted or cheap”? Working on a farm (say picking potatoes) does not guarantee the field worker “access” (in any sense) to fruits or vegetables in general (or even to potatoes specifically). Working on a farm certainly does not mean workers are offered any part of harvests (cheaply, or at all). Without data, this presumption is just fundamentally flawed.

Authors: Thank you for this comment. We agree and eliminated agricultural workers as part of the FFV sellers’ group and re-estimated all our tables.

- Line 276: the authors found an association with level of schooling (presumably, although “education” never defined or explained). They did not find some benefit for any educational strategy and, moreover, have no data to support “likely to be effective at increasing FV consumption.” For one reason, produce consumption was not even an outcome in this study—and if it was, there was no difference between the groups! For another, as already mentioned repeatedly, this was a cross-sectional study! (and one based on self-reported data, the reliability and validity of which are never mentioned).

Authors: Thank you for pointing at that. We now define education and use years of education (schooling) throughout the paper. Also, we replaced “FV consumption” with “obesity indicators” in the discussion section.

Answers to Reviewer #2

This paper presents data from a natural experiment that allows access to produce to be eliminated as a variable to explain differences in BMI among populations. This is a very creative way to test several hypotheses regarding the role of various factors in contributing to BMI. The data were thoroughly analyzed and the results were presented with clarity.

My only critique of the paper is with the writing style. The first three paragraphs of the introduction are choppy and, in my opinion, don't clearly provide context for the study. The first sentence states "Among healthy foods, produce holds a place of privilege." There are two unsupported propositions here - that some foods are always healthy and others are not, and consuming the healthy foods is a privilege. I think it would be best to avoid such judgements and say something like this: Fresh fruits and vegetables (FV) are a natural source of vitamins, minerals and fiber and are a critical component of a healthy diet. Literature suggests that a diet high in FVs leads to better health outcomes. However, consuming recommended amounts of FVs can be constrained by availability, accessibility, affordability, acceptability and accommodation. Previous studies have attempted to measure the role of food access on health indicators such as consumption of FVs per capita and BMI, but measuring access is problematic. People do not necessarily move in straight lines . . .

Authors: Thank you. We use the suggested paragraph to start improving the introduction. Following the journal guidelines for a review, we highlighted the changes in the manuscript.

I wasn't sure what was meant by, "Supermarkets make healthy and unhealthy food more available" (76)

Authors: Thank you. We have edited it.

There are also unusual phrases, such as "literature has enhanced the role of access." (7, 14)

Authors: Thank you. We have edited it.

We assume this sample has granted access (30, 60)

Authors: Thank you. We have edited it. We assume this sample has granted access (30, 60) a guaranteed access.

which forces to redefine food maps (73)

Authors: Thank you. We have changed to “which would imply redefining food maps.”

by pursuing to provide (89)

Authors: Thank you. We have changed to “by providing”.

weighted (217)

Authors: Thank you. We have deleted because it’s unnecessary.

contributing to improve their diet (239)

Authors: Thank you. We have deleted because it’s implicit.

After the introduction, the writing becomes better.

Authors: Thank you. We have edited the all mentioned statements. Following the journal guidelines for a review, we highlighted the changes in the manuscript.

These comments are easily addressed.

Overall, the paper makes an important contribution to our understanding of obesity rates and where interventions would be most effective.

Decision Letter 1

Petri Böckerman

18 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-02163R1

Obesity under Full Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Access Conditions

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Silva,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The revised version should take into account all the comments in the reports.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Petri Böckerman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors did a good job addressing the previous concerns, and the writing style was greatly improved.

Reviewer #3: Referee report on "Obesity under full fresh fruit and vegetable access conditions" (PONE-D-20-02163R1)

In this paper, the authors examined how better access to fresh fruit and vegetables (FFV) is associated with BMI using cross-section data. The identification strategy is based on the assumption that farmers and traditional market sellers presumably have better access to FFV. Estimations employ OLS, matching, and instrumental variables methods. I think the authors have addressed most of the comments reviewers have pointed out. However, I still have some major concerns related to estimation methods and interpretations.

1. The authors now use an indicator variable for FFV sellers to explain BMI. However, the idea of the paper is that FFV sellers have better access to FFC products, which may affect their FFV consumption, and therefore, BMI. So, instead of estimating a reduced form model, as they do now, they should estimate a mediation model which would answer to three questions: 1) Is better access to FFV linked with FFV consumption (based on Table 2, you have information on FFV consumption), 2) Is FFV consumption associated with BMI, and 3) does FFV consumption mediate the potential link between access to FFV and BMI. Using a mediation model with adequate control variables (e.g. education, income, and sex), you could do that (see e.g. sgmediation command in STATA).

If you find that being an FFV seller is linked with higher consumption of FFV products (with adequate controls; results in Table 2 do not control e.g. for education and income), that may also support your argument that FFV sellers have better access to FFV products (R1 seemed to be concerned whether FFV sellers actually have better access).

Now the authors find, based on OLS and matching results (I am quite skeptical about your IV results, I will explain below), that being an FFV seller is associated with higher BMI, which is a bit surprising and needs an explanation. I think that with a mediation model they maybe could find an explanation to this finding.

2. Height as an outcome variable. I think this is not a relevant outcome variable in this paper. Instead of using it as an outcome variable, I would use it as a control variable in the models that use weight as the outcome variable.

3. I am skeptical of the IV results. The authors use the mother’s years of educations and its square as instruments for a child’s education. Intuitively, the same unobservable factors may explain both mother’s and child’s education years, which violates the IV assumptions. Also, Sargan’s test of overidentifying restrictions (Table 8) rejects the null hypothesis (p-value in the BMI equation, i.e. in your main results, was 0.043), which implies that the instruments (as a group) are not exogenous. I would not report these results in the paper.

4. Please be explicit with your data description in section 2.2: What year(s) does your data (i.e. the data that you use in the estimations) cover? Which variables are self-reported and which are based on measurements conducted by health care professionals? For example, is BMI self-reported or not?

5. There is a detailed description of the matching model but no discussion about IV method and instrument validity. However, as said, I am skeptical that your instrument is valid so, I would drop those results.

6. In Table 2 you use t-test to indicate whether the differences are statistically significant. Why don’t you also show similar results in Table 1?

7. On page 7, the authors state: “the variable FFV seller shows significant effects on weight and height that may explain the weak effect on BMI”. I don’t understand this statement.

8. The authors conclude that “years of education, more than household income, is associated with BMI reductions”. I don’t see where this interpretation comes from.

9. In the Discussion section: “We used the ENS in Chile to assess the change on FFV sellers’ obesity related indicators”. The way I understood the setup, the authors explain BMI levels, not changes.

10. Table 3: In column 3, the authors use population weights. If sample weights are necessary, why don’t you use them in the OLS and matching models? Also, if weights are necessary, please explain that in the section “Materials and Methods”.

11. On page 3 (last paragraph), there are two times “second” (should be second and third). Therefore it is unclear to which point the authors refer when they say that “we cannot test the second condition directly”.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 21;16(4):e0249333. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249333.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


12 Nov 2020

1. The authors now use an indicator variable for FFV sellers to explain BMI. However, the idea of the paper is that FFV sellers have better access to FFC products, which may affect their FFV consumption, and therefore, BMI. So, instead of estimating a reduced form model, as they do now, they should estimate a mediation model which would answer to three questions: 1) Is better access to FFV linked with FFV consumption (based on Table 2, you have information on FFV consumption), 2) Is FFV consumption associated with BMI, and 3) does FFV consumption mediate the potential link between access to FFV and BMI. Using a mediation model with adequate control variables (e.g. education, income, and sex), you could do that (see e.g. sgmediation command in STATA).

If you find that being an FFV seller is linked with higher consumption of FFV products (with adequate controls; results in Table 2 do not control e.g. for education and income), that may also support your argument that FFV sellers have better access to FFV products (R1 seemed to be concerned whether FFV sellers actually have better access).

Now the authors find, based on OLS and matching results (I am quite skeptical about your IV results, I will explain below), that being an FFV seller is associated with higher BMI, which is a bit surprising and needs an explanation. I think that with a mediation model they maybe could find an explanation to this finding.

Answer: Thank you. We have replaced the OLS results (including IV OLS) by the mediation results. The mediation results are also consistent with the matching results. FFV sellers, despite having easy access to FFV, have a higher weight and BMI. As expected, higher education and higher income are associated with lower weight and BMI.

2. Height as an outcome variable. I think this is not a relevant outcome variable in this paper. Instead of using it as an outcome variable, I would use it as a control variable in the models that use weight as the outcome variable.

Answer: Thank you. We have done it that way. We agree that it makes sense to include height as an independent variable in weight models.

3. I am skeptical of the IV results. The authors use the mother’s years of educations and its square as instruments for a child’s education. Intuitively, the same unobservable factors may explain both mother’s and child’s education years, which violates the IV assumptions. Also, Sargan’s test of overidentifying restrictions (Table 8) rejects the null hypothesis (p-value in the BMI equation, i.e. in your main results, was 0.043), which implies that the instruments (as a group) are not exogenous. I would not report these results in the paper.

Answer: Thank you. We have replaced the IV OLS estimation by the mediation model results.

4. Please be explicit with your data description in section 2.2: What year(s) does your data (i.e. the data that you use in the estimations) cover? Which variables are self-reported and which are based on measurements conducted by health care professionals? For example, is BMI self-reported or not?

Answer: Thank you for this comment. We modified the “Data” subsection including the points requested. Specifically, we included: survey year used in our analyses, self-reported variables and those variables measured by health care professionals.

5. There is a detailed description of the matching model but no discussion about IV method and instrument validity. However, as said, I am skeptical that your instrument is valid so, I would drop those results.

Answer: Thank you. We have replaced the IV OLS estimation by the mediation model results.

6. In Table 2 you use t-test to indicate whether the differences are statistically significant. Why don’t you also show similar results in Table 1?

Answer: Thank you. We have included this analysis.

7. On page 7, the authors state: “the variable FFV seller shows significant effects on weight and height that may explain the weak effect on BMI”. I don’t understand this statement.

Answer: Thanks for this comment. We have deleted the regression on height as suggested, so the phrase mentioned in this comment was also deleted.

8. The authors conclude that “years of education, more than household income, is associated with BMI reductions”. I don’t see where this interpretation comes from.

Answer: Thank you. We have changed this phrase to incorporate the importance of both high education levels and high income levels as BMI reducers.

9. In the Discussion section: “We used the ENS in Chile to assess the change on FFV sellers’ obesity related indicators”. The way I understood the setup, the authors explain BMI levels, not changes.

Answer: That was a mistake, thanks for pointing at it.

10. Table 3: In column 3, the authors use population weights. If sample weights are necessary, why don’t you use them in the OLS and matching models? Also, if weights are necessary, please explain that in the section “Materials and Methods”.

Answer: Thank you. We have dropped the population weights from the estimation. We used them only for the descriptive statistics.

11. On page 3 (last paragraph), there are two times “second” (should be second and third). Therefore it is unclear to which point the authors refer when they say that “we cannot test the second condition directly”.

Answer: Yes, that was a mistake. Thank you for catching it. Now it says third instead of second. We have also eliminated that a condition could not be tested, as all of them could eventually be tested for. However, it seems there isn’t a validated test for unconfoundedness available yet. We do show supporting evidence for conditions one (overlap) and two (balanced sample) in the Appendix.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Plos Reviewer.pdf

Decision Letter 2

Petri Böckerman

27 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-02163R2

Obesity under Full Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Access Conditions

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Silva,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Reviewer #3 still has very serious concerns regarding your revised version of the paper. I encourage that you revise the paper only if you can address all her/his concerns.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 11 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Petri Böckerman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: There were just a few editorial issues.

1) Third sentence of the abstract should read, "Using fruit and vegetable access as a mediator, we found that years of education and household income are correlated with a decrease in obesity." (Add "access" and remove comma.)

2) Line 13; "agricultural farmers" is redundant. Just say "farmers." I think this occurred in one other place as well.

3) Sentence on lines 70 - 72 is unclear. ". . . socio-demographic characteristics lead to a food consumption pattern or the opposite." Unclear what "opposite" means in this context.

4) Lines 115 and 275 - comma is unnecessary

5) Table 2 - acceptable abbreviation for grams is "g" not "gr"

6) Table 3 - "height" is misspelled

7) Line 294 - "to" should be "with"

The authors are to be congratulated on a fine paper.

Reviewer #3: The authors have responded adequately to many of my comments but still, have major concerns regarding the paper.

1. In the introduction, the authors refer to the results from the mediator model solely saying “using mediation regression, we found that years of education and household income are associated with a smaller BMI”. This is a bit odd because this is not the main point why you performed a mediation analysis.

2. Mediation model: The authors refer to Baron & Kenny, who suggest that mediation analysis should be done in three steps. The paper by Iacobucci et al. (2007, p.153), to which the authors also refer, proposes conducting the mediation analysis via SEM. Whether mediation is significant is typically also tested using e.g., the Sobel test. It seems that this is not what the authors have done. In Table 3, they estimate two regressions separately.

3. Interpretation of the mediation results: The idea of the mediation model is to see 1) whether the independent variable (being an FFV seller) is associated with the mediator (FV consumption); 2) whether the mediator (FV consumption) is associated with the outcome (BMI) and; 3) whether this mediated pathway (1 and 2) is significant. The “FFV seller” coefficients in Table 3 (Columns 2 and 4) are related to point 1, and the “FV portions” coefficients in Table 3 (Columns 3 and 5) are related to point 2. The authors do not comment at all the aforementioned “FFV seller” coefficients in columns 2 and 4. Then, based solely on the “FV portions” coefficient, the authors conclude that “FV consumption is not acting as a mediator to explain BMI variation”. In some sense that applies, because for the mediation pathway to be significant, there needs to be a significant relationship between the independent variable and mediator and between mediator and outcome variable. However, making this interpretation solely based on the association between mediator and outcome variable is odd. E.g., the Sobel test could be used to test the significance.

4. Findings: The authors find that FFC sellers have higher BMI/weight. Why? It is hard for me to understand why simply being an FFV seller is associated with higher BMI unless there are unobserved confounders that affect the results. One potential explanation for this finding would have been that because FFV sellers have better access to FV products, they consume more calories (i.e., they consume FV products on top of all other food products). However, the mediation model results imply that this is not the case: FFV sellers do not seem to consume more FV products, and FV product consumption does not seem to be associated with BMI.

5. Conclusions: The main finding from the mediation model should be stated more clearly. Based on the results, the main finding seems to be that having better FFV access does not reduce BMI because better access is not associated with FFV consumption and because FFV consumption is not associated with BMI. There is no discussion about the finding that FFV consumption is not associated with weight. Does this finding receive support from other studies? From the point of view that FFV consumption is not associated with weight, some parts in the “Discussion” section seem a bit odd.

6. Causal terminology: The authors use causal terminology (e.g., “the fifth column shows the effect on weight…”), although the methods they use are usually not considered to allow causal interpretation.

7. Limitations of the study: The limitations of the study and the implications of these limitations require more discussion. For example, 1) the number of FFV sellers is rather small (96). This is a bit unfortunate because there is some indication that FFV sellers consume more FV products, but the differences are not significant. 2) Although the authors argue otherwise, it is possible that FFV sellers actually do not have better access to FV products. The argument that FFV sellers have better access to FV products, cannot be tested directly. If the authors would have found that FFV sellers consumed more FV products, that might have supported their argument. 3) Potential confounders (see my previous point 4).

8. At some point, I got lost with abbreviations FFV and FV. The authors talk e.g., about FFV access and FFV baskets but also about FV consumption. Would one abbreviation be enough?

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 21;16(4):e0249333. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249333.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


13 Jan 2021

Answers to Reviewer #2

1) Third sentence of the abstract should read, "Using fruit and vegetable access as a mediator, we found that years of education and household income are correlated with a decrease in obesity." (Add "access" and remove comma.)

2) Line 13; "agricultural farmers" is redundant. Just say "farmers." I think this occurred in one other place as well.

3) Sentence on lines 70 - 72 is unclear. ". . . socio-demographic characteristics lead to a food consumption pattern or the opposite." Unclear what "opposite" means in this context.

4) Lines 115 and 275 - comma is unnecessary

5) Table 2 - acceptable abbreviation for grams is "g" not "gr"

6) Table 3 - "height" is misspelled

7) Line 294 - "to" should be "with"

Authors: Thank you. We have changed all the above comments made by the reviewer.

The authors are to be congratulated on a fine paper.

Authors: Thank you. We appreciate the constructive feedback over the review process.

Answers to Reviewer #3

1. In the introduction, the authors refer to the results from the mediator model solely saying “using mediation regression, we found that years of education and household income are associated with a smaller BMI”. This is a bit odd because this is not the main point why you performed a mediation analysis.

Authors: Thanks for pointing at that. We have edited the paragraph to make it more informative (the changes are highlighted in the text).

2. Mediation model: The authors refer to Baron & Kenny, who suggest that mediation analysis should be done in three steps. The paper by Iacobucci et al. (2007, p.153), to which the authors also refer, proposes conducting the mediation analysis via SEM. Whether mediation is significant is typically also tested using e.g., the Sobel test. It seems that this is not what the authors have done. In Table 3, they estimate two regressions separately.

Authors: In the lines 255 to 259, we have added an additional explanation regarding the estimation procedure and the Sobel test results are available in the appendix.

3. Interpretation of the mediation results: The idea of the mediation model is to see 1) whether the independent variable (being an FFV seller) is associated with the mediator (FV consumption); 2) whether the mediator (FV consumption) is associated with the outcome (BMI) and; 3) whether this mediated pathway (1 and 2) is significant. The “FFV seller” coefficients in Table 3 (Columns 2 and 4) are related to point 1, and the “FV portions” coefficients in Table 3 (Columns 3 and 5) are related to point 2. The authors do not comment at all the aforementioned “FFV seller” coefficients in columns 2 and 4. Then, based solely on the “FV portions” coefficient, the authors conclude that “FV consumption is not acting as a mediator to explain BMI variation”. In some sense that applies, because for the mediation pathway to be significant, there needs to be a significant relationship between the independent variable and mediator and between mediator and outcome variable. However, making this interpretation solely based on the association between mediator and outcome variable is odd. E.g., the Sobel test could be used to test the significance.

Authors: We recognize that the previous discussion needed to be refined. In the line 255 to 259, we have added further discussion and support based on the Sobel test. As presented in the Appendix, the Sobel test results are aligned with our results of no mediation path through FV consumption.

4. Findings: The authors find that FFC sellers have higher BMI/weight. Why? It is hard for me to understand why simply being an FFV seller is associated with higher BMI unless there are unobserved confounders that affect the results. One potential explanation for this finding would have been that because FFV sellers have better access to FV products, they consume more calories (i.e., they consume FV products on top of all other food products). However, the mediation model results imply that this is not the case: FFV sellers do not seem to consume more FV products, and FV product consumption does not seem to be associated with BMI.

Authors: Thank you for pointing at that. Based on our analysis, fresh FV sellers have a weight and BMI similar to people with the same education level. Columns 4 and 5 in Table 3 show that weight and BMI are not significantly different comparing fresh FV sellers and the rest of the population when using a low-education subsample. Therefore, the variations on weight and BMI are associated with changes on education rather than with being a fresh FV seller. We understand that we need to make this more explicit in the discussion section.

5. Conclusions: The main finding from the mediation model should be stated more clearly. Based on the results, the main finding seems to be that having better FFV access does not reduce BMI because better access is not associated with FFV consumption and because FFV consumption is not associated with BMI. There is no discussion about the finding that FFV consumption is not associated with weight. Does this finding receive support from other studies? From the point of view that FFV consumption is not associated with weight, some parts in the “Discussion” section seem a bit odd.

Authors: Thank you. We have incorporated your comments in the discussion section and stated the mediation results more explicitly. We also included a discussion on our finding relating FV consumption and weight and added references that support our findings.

6. Causal terminology: The authors use causal terminology (e.g., “the fifth column shows the effect on weight…”), although the methods they use are usually not considered to allow causal interpretation.

Authors: Thank you for this comment. We did our best to eliminate any causal interpretations/terminology of our results.

7. Limitations of the study: The limitations of the study and the implications of these limitations require more discussion. For example, 1) the number of FFV sellers is rather small (96). This is a bit unfortunate because there is some indication that FFV sellers consume more FV products, but the differences are not significant. 2) Although the authors argue otherwise, it is possible that FFV sellers actually do not have better access to FV products. The argument that FFV sellers have better access to FV products, cannot be tested directly. If the authors would have found that FFV sellers consumed more FV products, that might have supported their argument. 3) Potential confounders (see my previous point 4).

Authors: Yes, thank you for this comment. We have expanded the limitations’ paragraph considering your suggestions. We did not mention potential confounders explicitly in the limitations as we have already said that having cross sectional data is a limitation and we believe this implies potential omitted variables that could be correlated with independent and dependent variables. Along these lines, we also added that the survey was not originally designed to measure fresh FV sellers’ lifestyle.

8. At some point, I got lost with abbreviations FFV and FV. The authors talk e.g., about FFV access and FFV baskets but also about FV consumption. Would one abbreviation be enough?

Authors: Point taken. We have kept “FV”. When we need to refer to fresh fruit and vegetables, we indicate “fresh FV”.

Thank you for your comments.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewers.pdf

Decision Letter 3

Petri Böckerman

11 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-02163R3

Obesity under Full Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Access Conditions

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Silva,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The revised version should take into account all the remaining comments stated in the reports.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 28 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Petri Böckerman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Referee report on "Obesity under full fresh fruit and vegetable access conditions" (PONE-D-20-02163R1).

I still have major concerns regarding the paper, particularly regarding the mediation analysis.

1. The main results should be presented more clearly throughout the paper (abstract, intro, results, and conclusions).

2. The authors do not explain in the paper how the mediated path is obtained/calculated.

3. I do not understand Table 5. Based on Table 3, the indirect effect in the weight model is (0.397*0.0291) 0.021. However, based on Table 5 it is 0.000. You can do the Sobel test using the delta method. Why are there separate columns for Sobel and delta? Based on table notes the standard errors in all columns (delta, sobel, monte carlo) are based on bootstrapping?

4. Tables should be self-standing. In Table 4, it is unclear to which variable the coefficients refer to.

5. The first paragraph of section 2 (page 3): I do not think the description of the mediation model really captures the essence of the method.

6. The second paragraph in section 2.2: “Fresh FV sellers’ access can directly affect BMI…” I would put this just “being a fresh FV seller”. Access to me seems to refer to the mediation pathway.

7. The authors should be more careful with causal terminology. E.g., “We found that having better fresh FV access does not reduce BMI”. “… education leads to a stronger effect…”

8. Relative to the methods and findings of this paper, I find the conclusion that “education needs to be part with a more comprehensive public policy” a bit excessive.

9. I did not understand the following sentence in the Discussion section: “Since our results show that fresh FV sellers consume similar amounts of FV compared to the rest of the population, we do not have direct evidence… …. who consume more FV and have lower BMI).”

10. As a limitation, the authors mention that FV sellers could understate their true income. How is that a major limitation?

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 21;16(4):e0249333. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249333.r008

Author response to Decision Letter 3


11 Mar 2021

Answers to Reviewer #3

I still have major concerns regarding the paper, particularly regarding the mediation analysis.

1. The main results should be presented more clearly throughout the paper (abstract, intro, results, and conclusions).

Authors: Thanks for pointing at that. We have edited the four sections that you mentioned to highlight the results and explain them more clearly (the changes are highlighted in the text).

2. The authors do not explain in the paper how the mediated path is obtained/calculated.

Authors: Thank you. We have incorporated an explanation in the Methodology section and we explain the computation in the Results section (the changes are highlighted in the text).

3. I do not understand Table 5. Based on Table 3, the indirect effect in the weight model is (0.397*0.0291) 0.021. However, based on Table 5 it is 0.000. You can do the Sobel test using the delta method. Why are there separate columns for Sobel and delta? Based on table notes the standard errors in all columns (delta, sobel, monte carlo) are based on bootstrapping?

Authors: We have corrected the Stata code. Now, Tables 3 and 5 present unstandardized coefficients, therefore, both tables are consistent (for weight equation: 0.3971*0.0291=0.012). To the best of our knowledge, Delta Method can be used or not to obtain the standard errors, which explain the two columns. Now, to avoid confusion, we have chosen to drop the Delta Method column, whose results are very similar to the other two test results. We have corrected the table notes, the bootstrapping is only for the Monte Carlo approach.

4. Tables should be self-standing. In Table 4, it is unclear to which variable the coefficients refer to.

Authors: Thanks for pointing at that. We have edited the footnote of Table 4 to make it more self-standing.

5. The first paragraph of section 2 (page 3): I do not think the description of the mediation model really captures the essence of the method.

Authors: Yes, thank you for this comment. We have edited the explanation including two references. The explanation of the mediation model is at the beginning of section 2 and continues in section 2.2.

6. The second paragraph in section 2.2: “Fresh FV sellers’ access can directly affect BMI…” I would put this just “being a fresh FV seller”. Access to me seems to refer to the mediation pathway.

Authors: Thanks for pointing at that. We have corrected it (the changes are highlighted in the text).

7. The authors should be more careful with causal terminology. E.g., “We found that having better fresh FV access does not reduce BMI”. “… education leads to a stronger effect…”

Authors: Point taken. We have reviewed the causal methodology in the full article and hope to have eliminated all the causal terminology (the changes are highlighted in the text).

8. Relative to the methods and findings of this paper, I find the conclusion that “education needs to be part with a more comprehensive public policy” a bit excessive.

Authors: We recognize that the previous statement was too strong. We have softened it. (The changes are highlighted in the text).

9. I did not understand the following sentence in the Discussion section: “Since our results show that fresh FV sellers consume similar amounts of FV compared to the rest of the population, we do not have direct evidence… …. who consume more FV and have lower BMI).”

Authors: Thanks for pointing at that. We have eliminated the statement (the changes are highlighted in the text).

10. As a limitation, the authors mention that FV sellers could understate their true income. How is that a major limitation?

Authors: We believed that as income is one of our control variables, and it is not directly observed, we cannot completely rely on how accurate it is. However, we understand that, following the previous comment, sample size rather than income measurement is a major limitation in this case. Therefore, we have decided to drop this statement to make this section more straightforward/accurate.

Thank you.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewers.pdf

Decision Letter 4

Petri Böckerman

17 Mar 2021

Obesity under Full Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Access Conditions

PONE-D-20-02163R4

Dear Dr. Silva,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Petri Böckerman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Acceptance letter

Petri Böckerman

8 Apr 2021

PONE-D-20-02163R4

Obesity under Full Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Access Conditions

Dear Dr. Silva:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Petri Böckerman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Plos Reviewer.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewers.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewers.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    The dataset is holded by the Subsecretaria de Salud Pública del Ministerio de Salud de Chile. The dataset is publicly available by request at https://www.portaltransparencia.cl/. File name: ENS-2009-2010-DEPTO.EPIDEMIOLOGIA-MINSALSTATA-Version.rar. The documentation is available at http://www.repositoriodigital.minsal.cl/handle/2015/601.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES