Table 4

Comparison of public opinions of policy, systems and environmental change policies/practices among respondents by community economic hardship status, the Los Angeles County Food and Nutrition Field Survey, 2013*

 CharacteristicsWeighted prevalencep Value¶
Full sample‘Low economic hardship’†‘Intermediate economic hardship’‡‘High economic hardship’§
% (n)% (n)% (n)% (n)
100 (1007)26.6 (198)46.1 (320)27.3 (489)
Incentivising/promotional policies and practicesRespondent support of policies/practices that seek to:
Attract more supermarkets selling fresh fruits and vegetables in low-income neighbourhoods<0.05**,††
 Favours strongly76.8 (776)74.9 (150)73.5 (229)84.0 (397)
 Does not favour strongly23.2 (216)25.1 (47)26.5 (83)16.0 (86)
Attract more farmers markets and produce stands selling fresh fruits and vegetables in low-income neighbourhoods
 Favours strongly78.6 (777)78.1 (153)76.2 (235)83.0 (389)
 Does not favour strongly21.4 (217)21.9 (42)23.8 (77)17.0 (98)
Increase the availability of fresh drinking water at local parks, schools and other public areas<0.05**,‡‡
 Favours strongly79.6 (804)72.6 (139)81.0 (255)84.0 (410)
 Does not favour strongly20.4 (184)27.5 (51)19.0 (60)16.0 (73)
Provide local grocery and convenience stores with tax credits and other incentives to encourage sale of healthy foods and to reduce the number of unhealthy foods and snacks sold<0.01**,††
 Favour strongly60.1 (620)54.5 (103)57.7 (184)69.4 (333)
 Does not favour strongly39.9 (368)45.6 (88)42.3 (132)30.6 (148)
Limiting/restrictive policies and practicesRespondent support of policies/practices that seek to:
Limit the container sizes in which sodas and other sugary drinks can be sold in restaurants, snack bars, movie theatres and sports arenas to no more than 16 ounces<0.05**,††
 Favours strongly42.9 (439)37.2 (72)41.2 (127)51.2 (240)
 Does not favour strongly57.1 (537)62.8 (116)58.8 (185)48.9 (236)
Prohibit supermarkets from selling unhealthy food items, like candy products, in their check-out aisles
 Favours strongly29.3 (291)26.1 (49)29.5 (88)31.9 (154)
 Does not favour strongly70.7 (668)73.9 (133)70.5 (217)68.1 (318)
Limit the number of fast food restaurants that a community can have
 Favours strongly37.8 (404)34.9 (67)36.0 (111)43.5 (226)
 Does not favour strongly62.3 (564)65.1 (120)64.0 (195)56.6 (249)
Strengthen school nutrition standards to limit the types of unhealthy foods and sugary drinks sold in the schools
 Favours strongly73.8 (729)77.1 (151)72.9 (230)72.2 (348)
 Does not favour strongly26.2 (267)23.0 (45)27.1 (87)27.8 (135)
Reduce access to unhealthy snacks and sugary drinks in vending machines in public buildings and work sites<0.05**,††
 Favour strongly44.6 (457)40.2 (79)42.7 (132)51.9 (246)
 Does not favour strongly55.4 (531)59.8 (113)57.3 (57.3)48.1 (235)
Changing business practicesRespondent support of policies/practices that seek to:
Encourage food and beverage companies to change the ingredients in their products to reduce their calories?<0.001**,††,‡‡
 Not very important60.8 (634)49.4 (96)59.5 (186)73.9 (352)
 Not very important39.2 (347)50.6 (94)40.5 (126)26.1 (127)
Encourage food and beverage companies to change the ingredients in their products to reduce their sodium or salt content?<0.001**,††,‡‡
 Not very important71.5 (725)61.5 (123)72.2 (226)80.1 (376)
 Somewhat important28.5 (271)38.5 (72)27.8 (89)19.9 (110)
Encourage food and beverage companies to stop advertising unhealthy products, like fast food and sodas, on TV shows that kids watch frequently?
 Not very important62.0 (617)58.0 (116)61.9 (193)65.9 (308)
 Somewhat important38.1 (374)42.0 (79)38.1 (119)34.1 (176)
  • Number of cases and percentage may not add up to the total or 100%, respectively, due to rounding and missing information. Reported n's are unweighted.

  • *‘Economic hardship’ rankings based on internally developed Los Angeles County Department of Public Health economic hardship index for selected places (more than 10 000 persons) and Los Angeles City Council Districts, 2008–2012.

  • †Includes the top 1/3 of communities ranking with the lowest economic hardship in Los Angeles County.

  • ‡Includes the middle 1/3 of communities ranking with the lowest economic hardship in Los Angeles County.

  • §Includes the bottom 1/3 of communities ranking with the lowest economic hardship in Los Angeles County.

  • ¶χ2 differences observed between the three economic hardship groups: ‘low economic hardship’, ‘intermediate economic hardship’ and ‘high economic hardship’.

  • **χ2 differences observed between ‘low economic hardship’ and ‘high economic hardship’ groups (p<0.05).

  • ††χ2 differences observed between ‘intermediate economic hardship’ and ‘high economic hardship’ (p<0.05).

  • ‡‡χ2 differences observed between ‘low economic hardship’ and ‘intermediate economic hardship’ (p<0.05).