Skip directly to searchSkip directly to the site navigationSkip directly to the page's main content

Complete Health Indicator Report of Daily Fruit Consumption

Definition

The proportion of adults who reported consuming fruit two or more times a day in the past month.

Numerator

The number of survey respondents who reported consuming fruit two or more times a day.

Denominator

The total number of survey respondents.

Data Interpretation Issues

In 2011, the BRFSS changed its methodology from a landline only sample and weighting based on post-stratification to a landline/cell phone sample and raking as the weighting methodology. Raking accounts for variables such as income, education, marital status, and home ownership during weighting and has the potential to more accurately reflect the population distribution. More details about these changes can be found at: [https://ibis.health.utah.gov/pdf/opha/resource/brfss/RakingImpact2011.pdf].

Why Is This Important?

Fruits and vegetables contain essential vitamins, minerals, fiber, and other compounds that may help prevent many chronic diseases. Compared with people who consume a diet with only small amounts of fruits and vegetables, those who eat more generous amounts as part of a healthful diet are likely to have reduced risk of chronic diseases, including stroke and perhaps other cardiovascular diseases, and certain cancers^1^. Fruits and vegetables also help people to achieve and maintain a healthy weight because they are relatively low in energy density^2^. To promote health and prevent chronic diseases, the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend two cups of fruit per day for a standard 2,000 calorie diet, with recommendations based on an individual's age, gender, and activity level^3^. [[br]][[br]] ---- 1. CDC. ''Can eating fruits and vegetables help people to manage their weight?'' (Research to Practice Series No. 1) [Online Access] [http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/nutrition/pdf/rtp_practitioner_10_07.pdf][[br]] 2. World Cancer Research Fund, American Institute for Cancer Research. ''Food, nutrition, physical activity and the prevention of cancer: a global perspective.'' November 2007. [Online Access] [http://www.dietandcancerreport.org] [[br]] 3. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2015-2020 [https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/]

Healthy People Objective NWS-14:

Increase the contribution of fruits to the diets of the population aged 2 years and older
U.S. Target: 0.90 cup equivalent per 1,000 calories

Other Objectives

Increase the proportion of persons aged 18 years and older who consume fruit two or more times each day. [[br]] '''Utah Target:''' 34%

How Are We Doing?

Please note that the fruit consumption questions were changed in 2011 and results cannot be compared with years prior to 2011. In 2015, about one of three (29.8%) Utah adults reported eating fruit two or more times each day (age-adjusted rate). The rate in 2011 (the first comparable year) was 33.9%. This decrease is statistically significant. Women report higher fruit consumption than men. Consumption increased with education and income. More college graduates (37.1%) and those with some post high school education (29.6%) reported eating fruit at least two times per day than those with lower levels of education (2015 data). Consumption also increased with income, with higher consumption in households earning $75,000 or more (33.2%) than those earning less than $25,000 (26.7%). Consumption varied by local health district (LHD) in 2015, with San Juan County LHD significantly higher (52.7%) than the state rate. Southwest LHD at 25.7% was statistically significantly lower than the state. None of the other LHDs had rates statistically significantly different from the state. Fruit consumption also varied by Utah Small Areas for years 2013 and 2015. Five small areas have rates of fruit consumption significantly higher than the state: SLC (Foothill/U of U), Millcreek, Holladay, West Jordan (SE), and American Fork/Alpine. Two small areas have rates significantly lower than the state rate: Kearns (V2) and Ogden (Downtown)

How Do We Compare With the U.S.?

In 2015, 29.8% of Utah adults reported eating fruit two or more times each day, which is greater than than the U.S. rate of 28.8% (age-adjusted rates), but difference is not statistically significant.

What Is Being Done?

In 2013, through funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Healthy Living through Environment, Policy, and Improved Clinical Care Program (EPICC) was established. EPICC works on Environmental Approaches that Promote Health. EPICC works: In Schools:[[br]] 1) Schools are encouraged to adopt the Comprehensive School Physical Activity Program. This framework encourages students to be physically active for 60 minutes a day through school, home and community activities.[[br]] 2) Height and weight trends are being tracked in a sample of elementary students to monitor Utah students.[[br]] 3) Action for Healthy Kids brings partners together to improve nutrition and physical activity environments in Utah's schools by implementing the school-based state plan strategies, working with local school boards to improve or develop policies for nutritious foods in schools. This includes recommendations for healthy vending options. In Worksites:[[br]] 1) The Utah Council for Worksite Health Promotion recognizes businesses that offer employee fitness and health promotion programs.[[br]] 2) EPICC partners with local health departments to encourage worksites to complete the CDC Scorecard and participate in yearly health risk assessment for their employees. EPICC provides toolkits and other resources for employers interested in implementing wellness programs through the [http://choosehealth.utah.gov choosehealth.utah.gov] website: [http://choosehealth.utah.gov/worksites/why-worksite-wellness.php] -- In Communities:[[br]] 1) Local health departments (LHDs) receive federal funding to partner with schools, worksites, and other community based organizations to increase access to fresh fruits and vegetables through farmers markets and retail stores. LHDs also work with cities within their jurisdictions to create a built environment that encourages physical activity. In Healthcare:[[br]] 1) EPICC works with health care systems to establish community clinical linkages to support individuals at risk for or diagnosed with diabetes or hypertension to engage in lifestyle change programs such as chronic disease self-management and diabetes prevention programs. In Childcare:[[br]] 1) Nine local health departments statewide have implemented the TOP Star program, which aims to improve the nutrition and physical activity environments and achieve best practice in child care centers and homes.[[br]] 2) EPICC works with state and local partners through the Childcare Obesity Prevention workgroup to implement policy and systems changes in early care and education across agencies statewide.

Evidence-based Practices

The EPICC program promotes evidence based practices collected by the Center TRT. The Center for Training and Research Translation (Center TRT) bridges the gap between research and practice and supports the efforts of public health practitioners working in nutrition, physical activity, and obesity prevention by: *Reviewing evidence of public health impact and disseminating population-level interventions; *Designing and providing practice-relevant training both in-person and web-based; *Addressing social determinants of health and health equity through training and translation efforts; and *Providing guidance on evaluating policies and programs aimed at impacting healthy eating and physical activity.[[br]] [[br]] Appropriate evidence based interventions can be found at: [[br]] [http://www.centertrt.org/?p=interventions_interventions_overview]

Available Services

The [http://www.choosehealth.utah.gov/ EPICC Program website] includes information and links to national websites on increasing fruit and vegetable consumption. The [http://www.choosemyplate.gov/ MyPlate] food guidance system provides consumer tools, in English and Spanish, to meet the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, including individualized plans, tools to track intake, and plans for early childhood, pregnancy, and lactation. The [http://www.fruitsandveggiesmorematters.org/ Fruits & Veggies--More Matters], the [http://www.choosemyplate.gov/MyPlate/ U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)] and [http://www.pbhfoundation.org/ Produce for Better Health] websites include a kids' site, educational brochures, recipes, and consumer tips for selecting, storing, and preparing vegetables.


Related Indicators

Relevant Population Characteristics

Overall, more women than men reported eating fruit two or more times daily, and the rate increased with age, education, and income. Some regional differences were also seen.

Related Relevant Population Characteristics Indicators:


Risk Factors

There is some evidence that people who form the habit of eating fruits and vegetables early in life are likely to maintain the behavior as adults^1^.[[br]] [[br]] ---- 1. CDC. ''Can eating fruits and vegetables help people to manage their weight?'' (Research to Practice Series No. 1) [Online Access] [http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/nutrition/pdf/rtp_practitioner_10_07.pdf]

Related Risk Factors Indicators:


Health Status Outcomes

People who eat few fruits and vegetables are at higher risk for developing several types of cancer, heart disease, stroke, and other chronic diseases.

Related Health Status Outcomes Indicators:




Graphical Data Views

Fruit Consumed Two or More Times per Day Utah and U.S., 2011-2015

::chart - missing::
confidence limits

In 2012, Utah added the question on fruit consumption. This question was not available in the U.S. dataset, no there is no value for U.S. 2012. Due to changes in both sampling and the fruit consumption question format, 2011 data should not be compared to previous years.
BRFSS Utah vs. U.S.YearAge-adjusted Percentage of AdultsLower LimitUpper Limit
Record Count: 7
UT New Methodology201133.9%32.8%34.9%
UT New Methodology201225.0%23.0%27.1%
UT New Methodology201334.2%33.2%35.3%
UT New Methodology201529.8%28.8%30.9%
US New Methodology201130.8%30.6%31.1%
US New Methodology201330.1%29.8%30.4%
US New Methodology201528.8%28.5%29.1%

Data Notes

U.S. data do not include U.S. territories, but do include District of Columbia. Age-adjusted to U.S. 2000 standard population.

Data Sources

  • Utah Data: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Office of Public Health Assessment, Utah Department of Health
  • U.S. Data: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), Division of Behavioral Surveillance, CDC Office of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services


Fruit Consumed Two or More Times per Day by Race, Utah Adults Age 18+, 2015

::chart - missing::
confidence limits

Highest rate of daily fruit consumption is seen for adults who are American Indian/Alaskan Native. The lowest rate is seen for Asian adults.
Race/EthnicityAge-adjusted Percentage of AdultsLower LimitUpper Limit
Record Count: 7
American Indian, Alaskan Native34.4%24.5%45.8%
Asian26.3%18.3%36.2%
Black, African American31.7%19.0%47.8%
Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander27.3%16.1%42.6%
White29.6%28.5%30.8%
Other33.0%27.6%38.8%
All Races/Ethnicities29.8%28.7%30.9%

Data Notes

Age-adjusted to U.S. 2000 standard population based on 3 age groups: 18-34, 35-49, and 50+.

Data Source

Utah Data: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Office of Public Health Assessment, Utah Department of Health


Fruit Consumed Two or More Times per Day by Ethnicity, Utah Adults Age 18+, 2015

::chart - missing::
confidence limits

Hispanic adults have higher rates of fruit consumption but the difference in consumption between Hispanic adults and non-Hispanic adults is not statistically significant.
Hispanic EthnicityAge-adjusted Percentage of AdultsLower LimitUpper Limit
Record Count: 3
Hispanic31.8%27.9%36.1%
Non-Hispanic29.5%28.4%30.6%
All Utahns29.8%28.8%30.9%

Data Notes

Age-adjusted to U.S. 2000 standard population.

Data Source

Utah Data: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Office of Public Health Assessment, Utah Department of Health


Fruit Consumed Two or More Times per Day by Age and Sex, Utah, 2015

::chart - missing::
confidence limits

Rates shown are crude rates. Women have higher rates of consuming fruit two or more times a day compared to men across every age group.
Males vs. FemalesAge GroupPercentage of AdultsLower LimitUpper Limit
Record Count: 12
Male18-3421.9%19.4%24.7%
Male35-4924.5%21.7%27.6%
Male50-6423.6%21.0%26.3%
Male65+24.6%21.6%27.9%
Female18-3433.2%30.2%36.3%
Female35-4939.0%36.0%42.2%
Female50-6436.5%33.6%39.5%
Female65+34.3%31.1%37.7%
Total18-3427.5%25.5%29.6%
Total35-4931.8%29.7%34.0%
Total50-6430.1%28.1%32.1%
Total65+29.8%27.6%32.2%

Data Source

Utah Data: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Office of Public Health Assessment, Utah Department of Health


Fruit Consumed Two or More Times per Day by Local Health District, Utah, 2015

::chart - missing::
confidence limits

Consumption varied by local health district (LHD) in 2015, with San Juan County LHD significantly higher (52.7%) than the state rate. Southwest LHD at 25.7% was statistically significantly lower than the state. None of the other LHDs had rates statistically significantly different from the state.
Local Health DistrictAge-adjusted Percentage of Adults 18+Lower LimitUpper Limit
Record Count: 14
Bear River28.2%24.4%32.4%
Central29.3%23.7%35.7%
Davis County29.4%26.1%32.8%
Salt Lake County31.4%29.6%33.3%
San Juan52.7%39.8%65.3%
Southeast25.4%18.6%33.5%
Southwest25.7%22.2%29.6%
Summit36.5%27.9%46.1%
Tooele24.6%19.0%31.2%
TriCounty27.8%22.1%34.3%
Utah County30.4%27.9%33.0%
Wasatch30.2%20.6%42.0%
Weber-Morgan26.8%23.4%30.4%
State of Utah29.8%28.8%30.9%

Data Notes

Age-adjusted to U.S. 2000 standard population.

Data Source

Utah Data: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Office of Public Health Assessment, Utah Department of Health


Fruit Consumed Two or More Times per Day by Utah Small Area, Adults Age 18+, 2013 and 2015

::chart - missing::
confidence limits

Fruit consumption also varied by Utah Small Areas for years 2013 and 2015. Five small areas have rates of fruit consumption significantly higher than the state: SLC (Foothill/U of U), Millcreek, Holladay, West Jordan (SE), and American Fork/Alpine. Two small areas have rates significantly lower than the state rate: Kearns (V2) and Ogden (Downtown)
Utah Small AreasAge-adjusted Percentage of AdultsLower LimitUpper Limit
Record Count: 66
Brigham City27.9%21.2%35.6%
Box Elder Co (Other)27.8%21.4%35.3%
Logan31.8%27.5%36.3%
Cache Co (Oth)/Rich Co (All)30.7%25.4%36.6%
Ben Lomond29.4%24.1%35.4%
Morgan Co (All)/Weber Co (E)37.6%31.8%43.7%
Ogden (Downtown)23.5%18.0%30.0%
South Ogden27.7%22.0%34.2%
Roy/Hooper27.1%21.8%33.1%
Riverdale29.4%22.1%38.0%
Clearfield/Hill AFB28.3%23.3%34.0%
Layton32.3%27.8%37.2%
Syracuse/Kaysville31.7%26.8%37.0%
Farmington/Centerville36.0%29.0%43.5%
Woods Cross/North Salt Lake34.1%27.1%41.8%
Bountiful32.7%27.1%38.7%
SLC (Rose Park)39.2%30.8%48.3%
SLC (Avenues)35.5%26.7%45.4%
SLC (Foothill/U of U)47.0%39.0%55.1%
Magna26.6%19.0%35.9%
SLC (Glendale)31.6%23.3%41.2%
West Valley (West)30.5%25.8%35.6%
West Valley (East) V229.4%23.2%36.4%
SLC (Downtown)32.2%26.8%38.2%
South Salt Lake27.5%19.7%37.0%
Millcreek38.3%33.0%44.0%
Holladay39.9%33.6%46.6%
Cottonwood35.2%29.2%41.7%
Kearns V224.1%18.4%30.7%
Taylorsville (E)/Murray (W)37.0%30.5%43.9%
Taylorsville (West)29.2%23.4%35.9%
Murray31.3%24.8%38.7%
Midvale27.7%20.9%35.6%
West Jordan (NE) V227.5%21.0%35.2%
West Jordan (SE)42.4%35.4%49.8%
West Jordan (W)/Copperton38.1%30.6%46.1%
South Jordan34.1%29.3%39.3%
Sandy (Center)30.9%25.6%36.7%
Sandy (NE)32.5%25.2%40.8%
Sandy (SE)39.4%31.4%48.0%
Riverton/Draper32.6%28.7%36.7%
Tooele Co27.8%23.6%32.4%
Lehi/Cedar Valley30.0%25.4%35.1%
American Fork/Alpine38.6%32.8%44.7%
Pleasant Grove/Lindon35.6%29.6%42.1%
Orem (North)34.0%27.2%41.5%
Orem (West)32.3%25.3%40.2%
Orem (East)32.1%23.8%41.8%
Provo (North)/BYU33.9%26.9%41.8%
Provo (South)34.6%28.1%41.7%
Springville/Spanish Fork32.8%28.4%37.5%
Utah Co (South)27.6%22.1%34.0%
Summit Co36.0%30.7%41.7%
Wasatch Co35.4%29.0%42.3%
TriCounty LHD29.9%26.0%34.1%
Juab/Millard/Sanpete Co29.8%25.1%35.1%
Sevier/Piute/Wayne Co25.6%18.6%34.2%
Carbon/Emery Co28.3%22.6%34.8%
Grand County23.8%16.1%33.8%
San Juan County42.8%31.9%54.4%
St George29.4%24.9%34.3%
Washington Co (Other)27.7%22.9%33.0%
Cedar City26.5%20.9%32.9%
Southwest LHD (Other)26.5%20.0%34.2%
State32.0%31.2%32.8%

Data Notes

Age-adjusted to U.S. 2000 standard population. Note that the total for the state in this view represents two years of data combined (2013, and 2015). A description of the Utah Small Areas may be found on IBIS at the following URL: [http://ibis.health.utah.gov/resource/Help.html].

Data Source

Utah Data: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Office of Public Health Assessment, Utah Department of Health


Fruit Consumed Two or More Times per Day by Income, Utah, 2015

::chart - missing::
confidence limits

Consumption increased with income, with higher consumption in households earning $75,000 or more (33.2%) than those earning less than $25,000 (26.7%).
Income CategoryAge-adjusted Percentage of AdultsLower LimitUpper Limit
Record Count: 5
<$25,00026.7%23.8%29.8%
$25,000-$49,99929.2%26.7%31.9%
$50,000-$74,99931.0%28.3%33.8%
$75,000+33.2%31.2%35.2%
Total29.8%28.8%30.9%

Data Notes

Age-adjusted to U.S. 2000 standard population.

Data Source

Utah Data: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Office of Public Health Assessment, Utah Department of Health


Fruit Consumed Two or More Times per Day by Education, Utah, 2015

::chart - missing::
confidence limits

More college graduates (37.1%) and those with some post high school education (29.6%) reported eating fruit at least two times per day than those with lower levels of education (2015 data).
Education LevelAge-adjusted Percentage of Adults 25 +Lower LimitUpper Limit
Record Count: 5
Less Than High School25.7%21.0%31.0%
H.S. Grad or G.E.D.25.9%23.8%28.1%
Some Post High School29.6%27.7%31.6%
College Graduate37.1%35.3%38.9%
Total30.7%29.6%31.9%

Data Notes

Age-adjusted to U.S. 2000 standard population. Percentages include only adults aged 25 or older.

Data Source

Utah Data: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Office of Public Health Assessment, Utah Department of Health

References and Community Resources

Healthy Living Through Environment, Policy, and Improved Clinical Care Program, Utah Department of Health[[br]] [http://www.choosehealth.utah.gov] MyPlate and Super Tracker[[br]] [http://www.choosemyplate.gov] Produce for Better Health, Fruits & Veggies--More Matters[[br]] [http://www.fruitsandveggiesmorematters.org] National Fruit and Vegetable Alliance[[br]] [http://www.nfva.org/national_action_plan.html]

More Resources and Links

Evidence-based community health improvement ideas and interventions may be found at the following sites:

Additional indicator data by state and county may be found on these Websites:

Medical literature can be queried at the PubMed website.

For an on-line medical dictionary, click on this Dictionary link.

Page Content Updated On 11/01/2017, Published on 11/28/2017
The information provided above is from the Department of Health's Center for Health Data IBIS-PH web site (http://ibis.health.state.gov). The information published on this website may be reproduced without permission. Please use the following citation: " Retrieved Mon, 22 January 2018 17:04:12 from Department of Health, Center for Health Data, Indicator-Based Information System for Public Health Web site: http://ibis.health.state.gov ".

Content updated: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:33:52 MST