State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables, 2009

The State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables, 2009 provides for the first time information on fruit and 

vegetable (F&V) consumption and policy and environmental support within each state.†

 Fruits and vegetables, as part 

of a healthy diet, are important for optimal child growth, weight management, and chronic disease prevention.1,2

Supporting increased F&V access, availability, and reduced price are key strategies towards the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention’s (CDC) goal of improved F&V consumption and thus improved nutrition among all 

Americans. 

National and state-specific information is reported in the State Indicator Report for behavioral indicators and policy 

and environmental indicators. The behavioral indicators are derived from objectives for F&V consumption outlined in 

Healthy People 2010,2

 a framework for the nation’s health priorities, and data is from CDC supported health 

surveillance systems. The policy and environmental indicators are from multiple data sources and measure several 

aspects of a state’s ability to support the consumption of F&V. Each indicator can be measured in most states. 

Individual states, however, may have information collected through state-wide surveys and/or have policies enacted 

outside the monitoring period that can augment the data in this report and thus be used to further inform decision 

makers. 

Throughout states and communities, many groups play a role in supporting policy and environmental change to 

ensure that individuals and families can easily purchase and consume F&V. When state officials, health professionals, 

employers, food store owners, farmers, school staff, and community members work together, their efforts can increase 

the number of Americans who live healthier lives, by increasing the availability of affordable, healthier food choices. 

BEHAVIORAL INDICATORS – Each state’s progress towards the national Healthy People 2010 fruit objective (75% 

consuming daily ≥2 fruit), vegetable objective (50% consuming daily ≥3 vegetable), 

and both objectives are assessed from the F&V survey items included in the 2007 

Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (adults aged ≥ 18 years) and the 2007 

Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (adolescents in grades 9-12). 

POLICY AND ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS – The policy and environmental 

indicators measure three different types of F&V support: availability of healthier 

food retail in communities; availability of healthier foods and nutrition services in 

schools; and food system support.

As measures of a state’s 

ability to support F&V 

consumption, the report 

indicators show where a 

state has been successful 

and where more work 

may be needed.

U.S. Fruit and Vegetable Consumption

Daily Frequency Among Adults and Adolescents

32.8

14.0

27.4 32.2

9.5 13.2

Healthy People 

2010 Fruit

Healthy People 

2010 Vegetable

0

25

50

75

100

≥2 Fruit ≥3 Vegetables Both ≥2 Fruit and ≥3

Vegetables 

P re v a le nc e

Adults

Adolescents

1

Data in the State Indicator Report on 

Fruits and Vegetables can be used to: 

• Portray how states support the 

consumption of F&V. 

• Monitor progress and celebrate 

state successes. 

• Identify opportunities for 

improvement in F&V support 

through environmental, policy, 

and systems approaches.
2

State Indicator Report on Fruits & Vegetables, 2009 

Behavioral Indicators 

In the State Indicator Report, each state’s progress towards 

meeting the fruit objective, vegetable objective, and both fruit 

and vegetable objectives are presented from CDC supported 

health surveillance systems. All states have Behavioral Risk 

Factor Surveillance System F&V data and the majority of 

states have Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System F&V 

data allowing for comparisons. 

This is the first time that national and state-specific data for 

the proportion of Americans in each state meeting both F&V 

objectives is presented. The information for this indicator 

differs from the older Healthy People 2000 objective of 5 or 

more F&V as that measure could be met by only consuming 

one component, e.g. fruit. Confidence intervals are provided in 

addition to the estimates and should be used when comparing 

data. The behavioral indicators profile the extent to which 

adults and adolescents in the state consume F&V as derived 

from the Healthy People 2010 objectives and are therefore the 

• Proportion of adults in the state consuming daily: 

≥2 fruit (objective 19-5), ≥3 vegetables (objective 

19-6), and both ≥2 fruit and ≥3 vegetables (both 

objectives 19-5 and 19-6) 

• Proportion of adolescents in the state consuming 

daily: ≥2 fruit (objective 19-5), ≥3 vegetables 

(objective 19-6), and both ≥2 fruit and ≥3 

vegetables (both objectives 19-5 and 19-6) 

Policy and Environmental Indicators 

The indicators represent three different types of strategies for 

improved F&V consumption. These types of strategies can 

occur or be supported at the state-level and/or occur or be 

supported at the community-level across the state. States may 

focus on a few or many of the indicators based on their 

existing capacity, partnerships, and resources. The strategy 

areas also generally reflect similar strategies to those that 

support healthy food choices at the local, community, or 

school level3-5 and strategies that encourage communities to 

organize for change.3

Availability of Healthier Food Retail in Communities 

Strategies and policies to improve the food environment can 

include increased access to healthier foods such as F&V 

through retail vendors in communities. This can include 

increased access to supermarkets and grocery stores that 

typically stock a high proportion of healthier foods including 

F&V, improved availability of healthier foods such as F&V in 

small stores including convenience and corner stores, and 

more farm-to-consumer approaches such as stands and 

markets where farmers sell F&V directly to consumers.6-8 

• Percentage of census tracts that have healthier 

food retailers located within the tract or within 

1/2-mile of tract boundaries 

Having adequate neighborhood access to F&V such as 

through supermarkets, larger grocery stories, and F&V 

markets has been shown to be associated with increased F&V 

consumption.8,9 One measure of access to F&V in a 

neighborhood is the percentage of state census tracts (a 

subdivision of counties designed to be homogeneous with 

respect to population characteristics, economic status, and 

living conditions, delineated by local authorities under U.S. 

Census Bureau Guidelines) that have typical healthier food 

retailers (supermarkets, larger grocery stores, warehouse 

clubs, and F&V markets) located within 1/2-mile of their 

boundaries. Areas without these types of retailers, however, 

may still have adequate access if smaller stores provide quality 

and affordable produce. 

• Policy for healthier food retail 

State-level policies or laws that support access through 

healthier food retail also have the potential to increase F&V 

consumption and improve nutrition.7

 Such policies include 

legislation and executive actions that provide for 1) the 

building or placement of new food retail outlets in 

underserved areas (e.g., grants/loans for building new 

supermarkets); 2) renovation and equipment upgrades of 

existing retail outlets to accommodate increased availability of 

healthier foods (e.g., purchasing refrigerators for small corner 

stores to allow the sale of fresh or frozen F&V); and/or 3) 

increases in and promotion of F&V at food retail outlets (e.g., 

increase display or shelf space, shelf labeling, or signage such 

as point of decision information). 

• Farmers markets per 100,000 state residents 

• Percentage of farmers markets that accept 

electronic benefits transfer (EBT) 

• Percentage of farmers markets that accept WIC 

Farmers Market Nutrition Program coupons 

Farmers markets are a mechanism for purchasing foods from 

local farms and can augment access to F&V from typical retail 

stores or provide a retail venue for F&V in areas lacking such 

stores.7,10 The number of farmers markets per 100,000 state 

residents provides a broad estimate of the availability of F&V 

from farmers markets adjusted for variation in population 

sizes. Farmers markets can also aid the local economy and act 

as important venues for low-income individuals and families 

by allowing those who participate in federal assistance 

programs administered by the of USDA to have increased 
3

F&V access.10 The percentage of farmers markets that accept 

Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) is an indicator of the 

availability of markets to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP), formerly known as Food Stamps, 

participants, other federal program recipients using electronic 

debit card systems, and to other community residents using 

bank debit and credit cards. Similarly, the percentage of 

farmers markets that allow purchases through the Special 

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and 

Children (WIC) Farmers Market Nutrition Program (FMNP) 

coupons is an estimate of the availability of this potentially 

important source of F&V to WIC mothers and their children.11 

Availability of Healthier Foods and Nutrition Services in 

Schools 

Schools are uniquely positioned to model and reinforce 

healthful eating behaviors by including F&V as part of foods 

offered on the school campus and at school-related activities 

among youth, school staff, parents, and community members. 

• Percentage of middle and high schools that offer 

fruits (not juice) and non-fried vegetables as 

competitive foods 

The Institute of Medicine recommends that competitive foods 

(food sold outside the USDA reimbursable school meal 

programs such as in vending machines, school stores, snack 

bars) be limited.5

 When food is offered or sold, it should be 

nutritious foods, including F&V.5

 Competitive foods are 

widely available in many middle and almost all high schools 

and thus increasing the percentage of these schools that offer 

fruit (not fruit juice) and non-fried vegetables to students can 

support a food environment in the school setting that more 

closely aligns with current dietary guidance. 

• Policy for Farm-to-School programs 

Farm-to-School programs can also improve access to F&V on 

the school campus and can facilitate education services about 

health, nutrition, and food production through training services 

for food providers, teachers, and/or parents and experiential 

learning for youth and staff through school gardens and farm 

visits.12,13 The existence of state-level policies such as 

legislation for Farm-to-School programs shows support for 

program creation, expansion, and maintenance. 

Food System Support 

A systems approach to food considers the many factors 

involved in getting F&V from farm to consumer including 

aspects of food production, processing, distribution, and 

retail.14 Also included in a food system approach are the 

participants in that system, including farmers, industries, 

workers, governments, institutional purchasers, communities, 

and consumers. 

• Percentage of cropland acreage harvested for 

fruits and vegetables 

Cropland acreage harvested for F&V as reported by the USDA 

is a broad indicator of domestic F&V inputs to the food 

system. Although the USDA agriculture survey is 

comprehensive and collects information on acreage to the 

1/10-acre, the cropland acreage measure lacks generalizability 

among some states because of factors such as: the types of 

plants harvested and their subsequent actual yields, as well as 

differences in states’ growing and environmental conditions, 

which can affect usable land for growing and harvesting 

purposes. 

• State-level Food Policy Council 

• Local Food Policy Councils

Food policy councils and related food committees or 

coalitions are organized, multi-stakeholder organizations 

which typically attempt to support environmental and policy 

change that can support improved food environments for 

healthy eating.3

 Their multi-stakeholder members attempt to 

work together on their designated area’s food system issues in 

a coordinated fashion and support and advise citizens and 

governments in developing policies and programs to improve 

the regional, state, and/or local food system. These councils 

can aid community F&V access by encouraging improvement 

of retail stores, supporting farm to institute programs, and 

designing model procurement policies and practices for 

schools, work sites, and other community organizations. 

For more information and feedback contact 

indicator_reportFV@cdc.gov

†

References to ‘states’ in the State Indicator Report when applicable include the District of Columbia as well as the 50 states.

Additional materials for the State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables, 2009 including maps and National Action Guide are available at 

http://www.fruitsandveggiesmatter.gov/indicatorreport

References 

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and U.S. Department of Agriculture. Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans, 2005. 6th Edition, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, January 2005. 

http://www.health.gov/DietaryGuidelines/dga2005/document/html/chapter5.htm. Accessed August 28, 2009. 
4

2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office, November 2000. http://www.healthypeople.gov/Document/HTML/Volume2/19Nutrition.htm. Accessed August 28, 2009. 

3. Keener D, Goodman K, Lowry A, Zaro S, Kettel Khan L (2009). Recommended community strategies and measurements to 

prevent obesity in the United States: Implementation and measurement guide. Atlanta, GA: U.S. DHHS, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/downloads/community_strategies_guide.pdf

4. IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2009. Local Government Actions to Prevent Childhood Obesity. Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press. 

http://www.iom.edu/Object.File/Master/72/800/local%20govts%20obesity%20report%20brief%20FINAL%20for%20web.pdf

5. IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2007. Nutrition Standards for Foods in Schools: Leading the Way Toward Healthier Youth. 

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3788/30181/42502.aspx

6. Seymour JD, Fenley MA, Yaroch AL, Khan LK, Serdula M. Fruit and vegetable environment, policy, and pricing workshop: 

introduction to the conference proceedings. Prev Med 2004;39(2)S71–4. 

7. Story M, Kaphingst KM, Robinson-O'Brien R, Glanz K. Creating healthy food and eating environments: policy and 

environmental approaches. Annu Rev Public Health 2008;29:253–72. 

8. Larson MI, Story M, Nelson MC. Neighborhood environments disparities in access to healthy foods in the U.S. American 

Journal of Preventive Medicine 2009;36(1):74–81. 

9. United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Measuring 

and Understanding Food Deserts and Their Consequences. 2009. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AP/AP036/AP036.pdf. Accessed August 28, 2009. 

10. United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Marketing Service. 

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/farmersmarkets. Accessed August 28, 2009. 

11. Herman DR, Harrison GG, Afifi AA, Jenks E. Effect of a targeted subsidy on intake of fruits and vegetables among lowincome women In the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. Am J Public Health 

2008;98(1):98–105. 

12. Joshi A, Azuma AM, Feenstra G. Do Farm-to-School Programs Make a Difference? Findings and Future Research Need. 

Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition 2008;3:(2)229–246. 

13. Joshi A, Azuma AM. Bearing Fruit: Farm to School Program Evaluation Resources and Recommendations. 

http://departments.oxy.edu/uepi/cfj/bearingfruit.htm.Accessed August 28, 2009. 

14. Sobal J, Khan LK, Bisogni C. A conceptual model of the food and nutrition system. Soc Sci Med 1998;47(7):853–63. 

Data Sources 

Behavioral Indicators 

Proportion of adults in the state consuming daily: ≥2 fruit, ≥3 vegetables, and both ≥2 fruit and ≥3 vegetables 

Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (adults aged ≥ 18 years), 2007. Weighted percentage. 

The BRFSS F&V module includes 6 questions delivered via telephone survey that were preceded by the following statement: "These next 

questions are about the foods you usually eat or drink. Please tell me how often you eat or drink each one, for example, twice a week, three 

times a month, and so forth." 1) "How often do you drink fruit juices such as orange, grapefruit, or tomato?" 2) "Not counting juice, how often 

do you eat fruit?" 3) "How often do you eat green salad?" 4) "How often do you eat potatoes, not including French fries, fried potatoes, or potato 

chips?" 5) "How often do you eat carrots?" 6) "Not counting carrots, potatoes, or salad, how many servings of vegetables do you usually eat? 

(Example: a serving of vegetables at both lunch and dinner would be two servings.)." Response categories ranged from never to an open ended 

number of times per day. Participants were not given a definition of serving size. Total daily fruit consumption was calculated based on 

responses to questions 1 and 2, and total daily vegetable was based on questions 3-6 (note: answer to #6 was treated as times per day). 

Available at http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/technical_infodata/surveydata/2007.htm. 
5

Proportion of adolescents in the state consuming daily: ≥2 fruit, ≥3 vegetables, and both ≥2 fruit and ≥3 vegetables 

Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (adolescents in grades 9–12), 2007. Weighted percentage. 

The Youth Risk Behavior Survey F&V module includes 6 questions delivered via classroom survey: 1) “During the past 7 days, how many 

times did you drink 100% fruit juices such as orange juice, apple juice, or grape juice? (Do not count punch, Kool-Aid, sports drinks, or other 

fruit-flavored drinks.)” 2) “During the past 7 days, how many times did you eat fruit? (Do not count fruit juice.)” 3) “During the past 7 days, 

how many times did you eat green salad?” 4) “During the past 7 days, how many times did you eat potatoes? (Do not count french fries, fried 

potatoes, or potato chips.)” 5) “During the past 7 days, how many times did you eat carrots?” 6) “During the past 7 days, how many times did 

you eat other vegetables? (Do not count green salad, potatoes, or carrots.).” Response categories ranged from 0 times in the last 7 days to 4 or 

more times per day. Total daily fruit consumption was calculated based on responses to questions 1 and 2, and total daily vegetable consumption 

was based on responses to questions 3-6. 

States with no estimates were due to either not having collected survey data, to not having achieved a high enough overall response rate to 

receive weighted results, or missing 1 or more of module items during administration of the survey. 

http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs/pdf/2007_National_YRBS_Data_Users_Manual.pdf

Available at http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs/data/index.htm. 

Policy and Environmental Indicators 

Percentage of census tracts that have healthier food retailers located within the tract or within 1/2-mile of tract boundaries 

Numerator: Retail Data, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Database last updated November 2007 which includes information on retail 

food establishments derived from Dun and Bradstreet commercial data. 

The following stores as defined by North American Industry Classification Codes (NAICS) were included: Supermarkets and larger grocery 

stores (NAICS 445110; supermarkets further defined as stores with >= 50 annual payroll employees and larger grocery stores defined as stores 

with 10-49 employees); Fruit and Vegetable Markets (NAICS 445230); Warehouse Clubs (NAICS 452910). Fruit and vegetable markets include 

establishments that retail produce and includes stands, permanent stands, markets, and permanent markets. Produce is typically from wholesale 

but can include local. The 2007 North American Industry Classification Codes descriptions. Available at 

http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/. Date accessed July 1, 2009. 

Denominator: Census Tract Information, 2000 U.S. Census Bureau. Available at http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tractez.html. Date accessed 

July 1, 2009. 

Policy for healthier food retail 

State-level food retail policies (legislation, executive action) enacted (yes/no) between January 1, 2001, and August 1, 2009, and qualified if 

they supported any of the following goals: 

a) the building and/or placement of new food retail outlets (e.g. new supermarkets in underserved areas, loan financing program for small 

business development); b) renovation and equipment upgrades of existing food retail outlets (e.g. purchasing refrigerators for small corner 

stores to allow for the sale of fresh produce); c) increases in and promotion of foods encouraged by the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans 

stocked or available at food retail outlets (e.g. increase display or shelf space for encouraged foods such as F&V; assistance in marketing of 

these healthier foods such as through point of decision information). 

Information on policy was obtained from the following three data sources: 

1. CDC Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity Legislative Database. Date accessed July 1, 2009. Available at 

http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/DNPALeg/. 

2. National Conference of State Legislatures Healthy Community Design and Access to Healthy Food Legislation Database. Date accessed 

August 11, 2009. Available at http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=13227. 

3. The Food Trust. Date accessed August 11, 2009. Available at http://www.thefoodtrust.org/php/programs/fffi.php; and 

http://www.thefoodtrust.org/php/programs/super.market.campaign.php#FFFIcreation. 

Farmers markets per 100,000 state residents 

Numerator: Farmers Market List. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Services. Released September 2009. Date 

accessed September 1, 2009. Available at http://apps.ams.usda.gov/FarmersMarkets/. 

Denominator: Population Estimates United States Census Bureau. July 2008. Date accessed July 1 2009. Available at 

http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html. 

Percentage of farmers markets that accept EBT 

Numerator: Farmers markets that accept EBT. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Services. Released September 

2009. Farmers’ Market Search. Date accessed September 1, 2009. Available at http://apps.ams.usda.gov/FarmersMarkets/. 
6

Denominator: Total farmers markets. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Services. Released September 2009. 

Farmers’ Market Search. Date accessed August 1, 2009. Available at http://apps.ams.usda.gov/FarmersMarkets/. 

Percentage of farmers markets that accept WIC FMNP coupons 

Numerator: United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Services. Released September 2009. Farmers’ Market Search. 

Date accessed September 1, 2009. Available at http://apps.ams.usda.gov/FarmersMarkets/. 

Denominator: Total farmers markets. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Services. Released September 2009. 

Farmers’ Market Search. Date accessed September 1, 2009. Available at http://apps.ams.usda.gov/FarmersMarkets/. 

Percentage of middle and high schools that offer fruits (not juice) and non-fried vegetables as competitive foods 

Numerator: Number of middle and high schools (via principal survey) that had affirmative response to Q. 32 about whether students can 

purchase from competitive food venues and affirmative to Q.33: “Can students purchase each of the following snack foods or beverages from 

vending machines or at the school store, canteen, or snack bar?” Yes to both response categories K. Fruits (not juice) and L. Non-fried 

vegetables (not juice). States with estimates are those with weighted data (at least 70% of the principals or lead health education teachers in the 

sample completed the survey). 

Denominator: All middle and all high schools surveyed. 

CDC 2008 School Health Profiles, School Principal Survey Available at http://www.cdc.gov/healthyYouth/profiles/2008/QuestionnaireP.rtf. 

Policy for Farm-to-School Programs 

State-level legislation for Farm-to-School programs enacted between January 1, 2001, and August 1, 2009, and qualified if the policy included 

one or more of the multiple components of the National Farm to School Program definition according to the Center for Food & Justice,12

including serving F&V procured within the state, providing agriculture, health and nutrition education opportunities, and supporting local and 

regional farmers. Information on policy was obtained from the following two data sources: 

1. CDC Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity Legislative Database. Date accessed July 1, 2009. Available at 

http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/DNPALeg/. 

2. National Conference of State Legislatures Healthy Community Design and Access to Healthy Food Legislation Database. Date accessed 

August 11, 2009. Available at http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=13227. 

Percentage of cropland acreage harvested for fruits and vegetables 

The census of agriculture surveys U.S. farms and ranches every five years for comprehensive agricultural data for every state and county or 

county equivalent in the United States. The 2007 census definition of a farm is any place from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products 

were produced and sold, or normally would have been sold, during the census year. Crop production is measured for the calendar year, except 

for avocados, citrus, and olives for which the production year overlaps the calendar year. Harvested cropland includes land from which crops 

were harvested and included land used to grow short-rotation woody crops and land in orchards, citrus groves, vineyards, nurseries, and 

greenhouses. Land from which two or more crops were harvested was counted only once. 

Numerator: National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 2007. Census of Agriculture. Available at 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/usv1.pdf. 

Table 29 Vegetables, page 508; Table 32 Fruits (excluding nuts), page 543; Table 33 Berries, page 560 

Denominator: National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 2007. Census of Agriculture. 

Available at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/usv1.pdf. 

Table 1, State Summary Highlights: 2007, page 276. Harvested cropland in acres, state-specific total acres. 

State-level Food Policy Council 

State councils designated as yes have a named point of contact on the Community Food Security Coalition website as of the accessed date. 

Those listed include councils of various types, with different approaches and at various stages of development. Regional or multi-state councils 

are not designated in this source. 

Community Food Security Coalition. 2008. Food Policy Council Program. Date accessed August 28, 2009. Available at

http://www.foodsecurity.org/FPC/council.html. 

Local Food Policy Councils 

Local councils designated as yes have a named point of contact on the Coalition website as of the accessed date. Those listed include councils of 

various types, with different approaches and at various stages of development. Community Food Security Coalition. 2008. Food Policy Council 

Program. Date accessed August 28, 2009. Available at http://www.foodsecurity.org/FPC/council.html. 

Links to non-Federal organizations are provided solely as a service to our users. These links do not constitute an endorsement of these 

organizations or their programs by CDC or the Federal Government, and none should be inferred. CDC is not responsible for the content of the 

individual organization Web pages found at these links.
State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables, 2009 

Behavioral Indicators 

State

Fruit (2+) Consumption

Adults

95%

CI

Vegetable (3+)

Consumption Adults

95%

CI

U.S. National 32.8 (32.5, 33.2) 27.4 (27.1, 27.7) 14.0 (13.8,14.2) 32.2 (30.2, 34.2) 13.2 (12.0, 14.5) 9.5 (8.6, 10.6)

Alabama 23.8 (22.3, 25.5) 28.2 (26.6, 29.9) 9.8 (8.8, 10.9)

Alaska 29.7 (26.8, 32.8) 27.6 (24.9, 30.5) 13.9 (11.8, 16.4) 26.9 (24.5, 29.4) 10.0 (8.5, 11.7) 7.0 (5.6, 8.6)

Arizona 32.8 (30.2, 35.6) 30.4 (27.9, 33.1) 16.1 (14.2, 18.1) 27.1 (24.8, 29.5) 11.0 (8.9, 13.5) 7.4 (5.7, 9.6)

Arkansas 24.4 (22.8, 26.0) 29.2 (27.7, 30.8) 11.2 (10.1, 12.3) 21.8 (19.3, 24.6) 8.8 (6.9, 11.1) 5.2 (4.1, 6.6)

California 40.6 (38.8, 42.4) 25.6 (24.1, 27.2) 16.1 (14.9, 17.4)

Colorado 35.3 (34.2, 36.5) 26.5 (25.5, 27.6) 15.2 (14.4, 16.1)

Connecticut 38.4 (36.8, 40.1) 29.2 (27.6, 30.7) 16.2 (15.0, 17.5) 33.6 (30.8, 36.5) 14.7 (12.7, 17.0) 10.4 (8.6, 12.4)

Delaware 28.9 (26.6, 31.2) 25.8 (23.7, 28.0) 12.3 (10.6, 14.3) 27.0 (24.9, 29.3)

Dist of Columbia 41.6 (39.5, 43.7) 33.0 (31.0, 35.0) 20.1 (18.5, 21.9) 29.4 (26.6, 32.4) 12.1 (9.9, 14.8) 8.8 (7.2, 10.8)

Florida 36.1 (34.8, 37.3) 29.3 (28.2, 30.5) 15.6 (14.7, 16.6) 32.7 (31.2, 34.3) 14.9 (13.6, 16.3) 10.9 (9.8, 12.1)

Georgia 27.3 (25.7, 28.9) 30.3 (28.7, 31.9) 13.3 (12.2, 14.6) 28.9 (26.8, 31.1) 12.6 (10.8, 14.5) 7.9 (6.4, 9.6)

Hawaii 39.1 (37.4, 40.8) 29.6 (28.0, 31.1) 17.5 (16.2, 18.8) 24.4 (21.8, 27.2) 14.2 (11.4, 17.7) 9.2 (7.1, 11.8)

Idaho 29.1 (27.5, 30.9) 25.1 (23.5, 26.7) 13.0 (11.9, 14.3) 25.3 (21.9, 29.1) 14.0 (11.8, 16.5) 8.9 (7.0, 11.2)

Illinois 36.6 (34.9, 38.4) 23.2 (21.8, 24.7) 13.7 (12.5, 14.8) 32.6 (30.1, 35.2) 13.2 (11.5, 15.1) 10.0 (8.5, 11.9)

Indiana 30.0 (28.4, 31.8) 26.4 (24.8, 28.1) 13.5 (12.2, 14.8) 26.8 (24.2, 29.6) 12.3 (10.5, 14.3) 8.8 (7.2, 10.7)

Iowa 29.6 (28.1, 31.2) 22.5 (21.1, 23.9) 12.3 (11.2, 13.5) 28.5 (25.7, 31.4) 13.5 (11.8, 15.3) 8.3 7.1, 9.7)

Kansas 23.9 (22.7, 25.2) 27.2 (26.0, 28.5) 10.6 (9.7, 11.5) 30.5 (28.2, 32.9) 14.8 (12.7, 17.3) 10.1 (8.2, 12.3)

Kentucky 24.6 (22.8, 26.5) 28.9 (27.1, 30.9) 10.8 (9.5, 12.3) 21.3 (19.9, 22.8) 11.1 (9.9, 12.5) 6.1 (5.1, 7.3)

Louisiana 28.5 (26.9, 30.2) 26.1 (24.7, 27.6) 11.5 (10.5, 12.7)

Maine 36.5 (35.0, 38.1) 31.2 (29.8, 32.7) 17.7 (16.5, 18.9) 28.8 (24.5, 33.4) 14.2 (11.5, 17.4) 10.0 (8.3, 12.1)

Maryland 35.9 (34.3, 37.4) 28.7 (27.3, 30.2) 15.4 (14.3, 16.6) 29.3 (26.2, 32.6) 11.3 (9.6, 13.2) 7.2 (5.7, 9.2)

Massachusetts 38.9 (37.8, 40.0) 28.7 (27.7, 29.7) 16.4 (15.6, 17.2)

Michigan 31.8 (30.4, 33.3) 23.2 (21.9, 24.6) 11.8 (10.8, 12.8) 29.7 (27.1, 32.4) 10.3 (9.0, 11.7) 7.4 (6.2, 8.8)

Minnesota 27.3 (25.6, 29.0) 25.8 (24.2, 27.5) 11.6 (10.5, 12.9)

Mississippi 24.1 (22.7, 25.5) 22.4 (21.1, 23.7) 8.8 (7.9, 9.8) 28.7 (25.8, 31.8) 11.7 (10.0, 13.5) 7.9 (6.8, 9.2)

Missouri 25.1 (23.4, 26.9) 26.2 (24.3, 28.1) 11.2 (10.1, 12.5) 29.1 (26.6, 31.8) 11.3 (9.4, 13.5) 8.1 (6.4, 10.2)

Montana 29.8 28.2, 31.5) 28.5 (26.9, 30.1) 14.5 (13.2, 15.8) 27.1 (25.2, 29.0) 11.7 (10.4, 13.2) 8.0 (7.0, 9.1)

Nebraska 33.6 (31.7, 35.5) 26.0 (24.3, 27.8) 14.0 (12.7, 15.5)

Nevada 29.7 (27.5, 32.0) 23.7 (21.8, 25.8) 11.8 (10.4, 13.4) 29.7 (27.4, 32.2) 11.7 (10.1, 13.4) 8.3 (8.8, 10.0)

New Hampshire 36.1 (34.5, 37.7) 30.4 (28.9, 32.0) 16.2 (15.1, 17.4) 33.3 (30.8, 36.0) 14.0 (12.3, 15.8) 10.1 (8.7, 11.7)

New Jersey 36.5 (34.7, 38.3) 29.0 (27.4, 30.7) 14.9 (13.7, 16.2)

New Mexico 27.5 (25.9, 29.1) 26.3 (24.8, 27.8) 12.5 (11.4, 13.6) 25.5 (22.9, 28.3) 13.3 (11.7, 15.2) 8.6 (6.9, 10.6)

New York 39.1 (37.4, 40.8) 27.3 (25.9, 28.9) 16.5 (15.2, 17.8) 34.4 (32.9, 36.0)

North Carolina 25.0 (23.9, 26.2) 30.1 (28.9, 31.3) 10.8 (10.1, 11.6) 25.5 (23.1, 28.1) 9.6 (8.5, 10.7) 6.0 (5.3, 6.9)

North Dakota 29.0 (27.3, 30.8) 24.3 (22.6, 26.0) 13.3 (12.0, 14.7) 26.8 (24.2, 29.5) 10.8 (9.4, 12.5) 7.8 (6.5, 9.3)

Ohio 28.6 (27.4, 29.8) 25.2 (24.1, 26.5) 12.2 (11.3, 13.1) 26.2 (23.6, 28.9) 10.6 (9.4, 11.9) 7.2 (6.2, 8.4)

Oklahoma 20.5 (19.3, 21.8) 24.4 (23.1, 25.7) 9.3 (8.5,10.2) 23.2 (21.2, 25.3) 10.7 (9.4, 12.2) 7.0 (6.0, 8.2)

Oregon 33.7 (31.9, 35.5) 29.7 (28.1, 31.4) 15.6 (14.3, 16.9)

Pennsylvania 35.0 (33.5, 36.5) 27.1 (25.6, 28.5) 15.1 (14.0, 16.3)

Rhode Island 36.4 (34.4, 38.4) 25.9 (24.2, 27.8) 14.6 (13.2, 16.1) 30.9 (29.1, 32.7) 11.7 (10.3, 13.2) 8.6 (7.6, 9.8)

South Carolina 23.8 (22.6, 25.0) 25.5 (24.3, 26.8) 9.3 (8.6, 10.1) 26.5 (23.4, 29.8 10.4 (7.9, 13.5) 6.3 (5.1, 7.7)

South Dakota 25.8 (24.3, 27.3) 23.8 (22.3, 25.4) 10.1 (9.2, 11.1) 25.1 (21.8, 28.7) 10.9 (9.5, 12.4) 7.5 (6.1, 9.1)

Tennessee 26.0 (24.0, 28.0) 37.8 (35.6, 40.1) 13.1 (11.7, 14.7) 26.4 (23.8, 29.2) 12.1 (10.3, 14.3) 7.9 (6.4, 9.6)

Texas 29.1 (28.0, 30.3) 30.0 (28.9, 31.1) 14.3 (13.5, 15.2) 28.1 (26.4, 29.8) 11.7 (10.7, 12.8) 8.3 (7.6, 9.1)

Utah 32.2 (30.2, 34.1) 24.8 (23.0, 26.7) 13.2 (11.9, 14.7) 29.5 (26.3, 32.9) 10.6 (9.1, 12.4) 7.4 (5.7, 9.5)

Vermont 38.6 (37.1, 40.1) 31.9 (30.5, 33.3) 17.9 (16.8, 19.1) 34.5 (29.9, 39.5) 15.8 (13.5, 18.4) 11.4 (9.3, 14.0)

Virginia 33.1 (31.0, 35.3) 30.6 (28.5, 32.7) 14.2 (12.9, 15.7)

Washington 33.7 (32.9, 34.6) 29.1 (28.3, 29.9) 15.1 (14.5, 15.7)

West Virginia 24.9 (23.3, 26.5) 26.0 (24.5, 27.6) 10.3 (9.3, 11.4) 27.7 (24.9, 30.7) 14.0 (12.4, 15.8) 8.6 (7.2, 10.3)

Wisconsin 35.0 (33.2, 36.9) 23.3 (21.7, 24.9) 13.7 (12.5, 15.1) 30.1 (27.6, 32.7) 10.2 (8.4, 12.2) 6.7 (5.5, 8.1)

Wyoming 32.0 (30.3, 33.7) 26.8 (25.3, 28.3) 14.6 (13.4, 15.8) 25.5 (23.5, 27.7) 13.0 (11.5, 14.7) 8.7 (7.5, 10.0)

Both Fruit

Veg

(2+) &

(3+) Consumption

Adults

95%

CI

Fruit (2+) Consumption

Adolescents

95%

CI

Vegetable

Consumption

(3+) 

Adolescents

95%

CI

Both Fruit (2+)

Vegetables

&

(3+)

Consumption

Adolescents

95%

CI

7

Data sources: 2007 BRFSS, 2007 YRBSS; States with no estimates were due to either not having collected survey data, to not having 

achieved a high enough overall response rate to receive weighted results, or missing 1+module items during survey administration. 
8

State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables, 2009 

Policy and Environmental Indicators 

State

%

 of Census

with

 tracts

Healthy

Retailers

Food

mile

within

 of

1/2

boundary

S

tate-Level

Food

Healthier

Retail Policies

Farmers Markets

100,000

per

% of Farmers

that

Markets

accept EBT

%

 of Farmers

that

Markets

accept

FMN

P

 WIC

Coupons

%

 of

and

Middle

High

Schools

Schools

offer

that

F&V

Com

petitive

as

Foods

State-Level Farm

School

to

Policies

%

 of Cropland

Acreage Harvested

for F&V

S

tate Food Policy

Council

Num

ber of Local

Policy

Food

Councils

U.S. National 72.0 8 1.7 7.6 28.2 20.9* 21 2.5 20 59

Alabama 67.2 No 2.4 1.8 39.1 11.6 No 1.2 No 1

Alaska 60.8 No 3.5 0 50.0 13.2 Pending 4.0 No 0

Arizona 70.1 No 1.0 18.2 18.2 18.4 No 18.9 Yes 1

Arkansas 61.7 No 1.7 0 8.3 8.8 No 0.2 Yes 0

California 83.5 Yes 1.4 6.6 33.6 32.1 Yes 34.4 No 14

Colorado 70.0 No 2.1 12.4 0 26.6 Yes 1.7 Yes 8

Connecticut 69.6 No 3.5 8.9 21.1 27.8 Yes 10.8 Yes 2

Delaware 71.6 No 1.8 0 6.3 19.7 No 8.7 No 0

District of Columbia 82.4 Yes 3.9 21.7 56.5 0.0 No NA 1

Florida 77.0 No 0.6 1.9 26.9 29.7 No 42.9 No 3

Georgia 70.4 No 0.2 0 16.7 Pending 4.3 No 2

Hawaii 80.7 No 5.7 15.1 0 7.7 Yes 27.6 No 0

Idaho 72.1 No 2.5 2.6 0 13.7 No 9.1 Yes 1

Illinois 70.8 Yes 1.5 0 20.5 27.7 Pending 0.3 Yes 2

Indiana 67.4 No 1.2 1.3 36.7 31.7 No 0.3 No 0

Iowa 63.6 No 7.5 49.6 68.8 19.5 Yes 0.1 Yes 0

Kansas 62.6 No 2.9 16.3 0 13.7 No 0.1 Yes 1

Kentucky 68.3 No 3.7 3.8 0 10.1 Yes 0.2 No 1

Louisiana 70.6 Yes 0.7 6.7 26.7 No 0.6 No 1

Maine 68.0 No 5.5 0 76.4 22.3 Yes 29.3 Yes 0

Maryland 76.6 No 1.6 0 82.4 27.9 Yes 3.0 No 0

Massachusetts 71.4 No 2.8 15.0 93.9 29.9 Yes 23.2 Yes 3

Michigan 66.5 Yes 1.6 3.1 22.7 39.0 Yes 4.5 Yes 1

Minnesota 63.6 No 1.5 5.1 38.0 18.0 Pending 1.3 No 1

Mississippi 66.9 No 1.4 0 2.4 9.4 No 0.8 No 0

Missouri 65.5 No 1.6 1.1 0 22.8 No 0.3 Yes 0

Montana 63.7 No 4.5 9.1 27.3 10.7 Yes 0.1 No 1

Nebraska 64.0 No 3.8 1.5 1.5 10.9 No 0.1 No 0

Nevada 77.4 Yes 1.1 0 0 20.1 No 2.2 No 0

New Hampshire 60.3 No 5.6 9.5 39.2 37.6 No 6.6 No 0

New Jersey 77.6 No 1.4 0.8 4.9 31.8 Pending 17.9 No 0

New Mexico 59.6 No 2.3 4.4 28.9 Yes 3.6 Yes 0

New York 83.4 Yes 2.2 0.7 1.0 35.7 Yes 7.2 Yes 2

North Carolina 74.2 No 1.6 1.4 4.7 25.2 No 3.3 No 0

North Dakota 56.8 No 7.5 0 6.3 4.7 No 0.4 No 0

Ohio 62.1 No 1.3 0 4.9 36.3 Pending 0.6 Yes 1

Oklahoma 57.4 No 1.0 2.9 2.9 15.0 Yes 0.3 Yes 0

Oregon 78.5 No 2.4 23.1 48.4 15.3 Yes 7.7 Yes 4

Pennsylvania 69.7 Yes 1.3 9.9 62.1 30.2 Yes 2.6 No 0

Rhode Island 70.8 No 3.7 2.6 53.8 30.9 No 17.1 No 0

South Carolina 68.3 No 2.1 22.8 80.4 22.1 Pending 2.9 Yes 0

South Dakota 55.7 No 1.9 0 6.7 7.9 No 0 No 0

Tennessee 68.0 No 1.0 0 9.2 14.7 Yes 0.8 No 2

Texas 70.7 No 0.4 0 34.6 28.3 Yes 0.9 No 0

Utah 73.2 No 1.1 19.4 3.2 24.9 No 1.4 Yes 0

Vermont 61.5 No 10.5 26.2 12.3 35.7 Yes 1.6 No 1

Virginia 76.6 No 1.5 2.6 15.7 26.7 Yes 1.8 Yes 1

W ashington 76.4 No 1.5 14.3 54.1 17.7 Yes 14.9 No 2

West Virginia 69.7 Pending 3.2 3.4 70.7 4.5 No 1.4 No 0

Wisconsin 59.5 No 3.2 1.1 18.2 24.8 No 3.6 No 2

Wyoming 67.7 No 5.4 0 0 10.3 No 0.1 No 0

*Average percentage across participating states